From daniel at digsys.bg  Fri Feb  1 02:20:39 2013
From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:20:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] Are Techies from Venus and Non-techies from Mars
 :)
In-Reply-To: <65C6AC79-0CEE-422E-A3B4-EDA837DF930D@hserus.net>
References: <119d01cdff2f$f1bf3c00$d53db400$@gmail.com> <510A4351.6030201@gmail.com> <596C85D3-BE98-42BC-A6C8-179E10CB5A61@hserus.net> <156601cdffd8$1d5dd580$58198080$@gmail.com> <65C6AC79-0CEE-422E-A3B4-EDA837DF930D@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <510B6CC7.7050500@digsys.bg>



On 31.01.13 23:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> One sad part of loaded language among several commentators in say network neutrality is the automatic assumption of malicious intent in any step at all taken by whoever they are in opposition to.

Hanlon's razor:

     "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by 
stupidity."

Sorry, couldn't resist :)

Daniel

PS: But then, different cultural.. frameworks have different behavior, 
like. Some places will first shoot you, then ask if you want a drink. 
Other still will ask you if you want a drink, then shoot you. As the 
saying goes in my country "different people, different ideals".

PPS: I now understand, by the way, why in traditional technical 
instruction the Administrator is referred to as "she". :-)

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to 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 Feb  1 02:26:47 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 12:56:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] Are Techies from Venus and Non-techies from Mars
 :)
In-Reply-To: <510B6CC7.7050500@digsys.bg>
References: <119d01cdff2f$f1bf3c00$d53db400$@gmail.com> <510A4351.6030201@gmail.com> <596C85D3-BE98-42BC-A6C8-179E10CB5A61@hserus.net> <156601cdffd8$1d5dd580$58198080$@gmail.com> <65C6AC79-0CEE-422E-A3B4-EDA837DF930D@hserus.net> <510B6CC7.7050500@digsys.bg>
Message-ID: <BE56CE40-087B-478D-8016-A15378736B4D@hserus.net>

I would normally apply it except for the fact that the people I've been dealing with are clearly intelligent.  And facts normally transcend cultural frameworks of one sort or the other.

Out of curiosity - making loaded (mis)statements to score a political point - what would you classify that as, out of the two ways Hanlon's razor can slice such a statement?

--srs (iPad)

On 01-Feb-2013, at 12:50, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 31.01.13 23:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> One sad part of loaded language among several commentators in say network neutrality is the automatic assumption of malicious intent in any step at all taken by whoever they are in opposition to.
> 
> Hanlon's razor:
> 
>    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist :)
> 
> Daniel
> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  1 02:43:40 2013
From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:43:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] Are Techies from Venus and Non-techies from Mars
 :)
In-Reply-To: <BE56CE40-087B-478D-8016-A15378736B4D@hserus.net>
References: <119d01cdff2f$f1bf3c00$d53db400$@gmail.com> <510A4351.6030201@gmail.com> <596C85D3-BE98-42BC-A6C8-179E10CB5A61@hserus.net> <156601cdffd8$1d5dd580$58198080$@gmail.com> <65C6AC79-0CEE-422E-A3B4-EDA837DF930D@hserus.net> <510B6CC7.7050500@digsys.bg> <BE56CE40-087B-478D-8016-A15378736B4D@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <510B722C.7060108@digsys.bg>



On 01.02.13 09:26, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Out of curiosity - making loaded (mis)statements to score a political point - what would you classify that as, out of the two ways Hanlon's razor can slice such a statement?

Who said Hanlon has an easy answer for this?

I would call it "politics".

Political speech is often highly illogical and rarely based on any 
facts. There is also not much difference between politics and religion. 
Please note I make absolute difference between religion and belief(s).

By the way, I didn't intend to drag the nice Venus vs Mars metaphor into 
politics or religion.

Daniel

PS: But if I have to strictly answer your question, I believe political 
speech is the product of both malice and stupidity.
Malice, because the intention of political speech is to trigger 
atavistic reaction by many who hear it, ultimately resulting in violence.
Stupidity, because those who involve in politics ultimately waste their 
lifetime.
Perhaps, if we look at intentions only, malice is the driving force -- 
because most of those people almost never realize how stupid it all is.

I also believe we all are stupid or malicious at some point and in some 
situation.

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

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

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

From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Feb  1 03:23:55 2013
From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:23:55 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] Digital resolutions for 2013
In-Reply-To: <1359376326.32528.YahooMailNeo@web172504.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <1359376326.32528.YahooMailNeo@web172504.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1359707035.7010.YahooMailNeo@web172505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

Greetings please checkout this link below.

http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/01/privacy-resolutions-2013-new-digital-identity-tutorials

 



“Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless”

NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA
CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045
EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com
Skype : vinsolo2







________________________________
 From: vincent solomon <vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk>
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2013, 15:32
Subject: How to protect your Identity 
 

Watch how you can protect your identity online.

http://www.internetsociety.org/manage-your-identity

 



“Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless”

NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA
CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045
EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug /
 vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com
Skype : vinsolo2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/bb63fd7d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Feb  1 03:25:34 2013
From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:25:34 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] Digital resolutions for 2013
In-Reply-To: <1359376326.32528.YahooMailNeo@web172504.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <1359376326.32528.YahooMailNeo@web172504.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1359707134.74923.YahooMailNeo@web172502.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

Greetings please checkout this link below.

http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/01/privacy-resolutions-2013-new-digital-identity-tutorials

 



“Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless”

NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA
CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045
EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com
Skype : vinsolo2







________________________________
 From: vincent solomon <vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk>
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2013, 15:32
Subject: How to protect your Identity 
 

Watch how you can protect your identity online.

http://www.internetsociety.org/manage-your-identity

 



“Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless”

NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA
CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045
EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug /
 vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com
Skype : vinsolo2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/be9d346d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From rj at indexoncensorship.org  Fri Feb  1 05:33:09 2013
From: rj at indexoncensorship.org (Rohan A. Jayasekera)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 10:33:09 -0000
Subject: [governance] International Internet-Related Public Policy
Message-ID: <0F459DBE7F3A774EB0F4E434CEFCEB8E280D3B@SERVER.indexforcensorship.local>

Dear all 
 
Any thoughts on Toure's speech as released on Wednesday from the International Internet-Related Public Policy meeting in Geneva?
 
http://www.itu.int/en/osg/speeches/Pages/2013-01-30.aspx
 
http://www.cio.com/article/728000/ITU_Internet_Policy_Still_on_its_Agenda
 
Best
 
Rohan Jayasekera
Index on Censorship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/cf06fa27/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From cveraq at gmail.com  Fri Feb  1 05:51:10 2013
From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 05:51:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] Digital resolutions for 2013
In-Reply-To: <1359707035.7010.YahooMailNeo@web172505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <1359376326.32528.YahooMailNeo@web172504.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <1359707035.7010.YahooMailNeo@web172505.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <96D40874-CFF3-45E7-9DDB-757CE88CB889@gmail.com>

Really a great lecture and tutorials 

Thanks a lot. Is there an Spanish version?

Carlos Vera

El 01/02/2013, a las 3:23, vincent solomon <vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk> escribió:

> Greetings please checkout this link below.
> 
> http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/01/privacy-resolutions-2013-new-digital-identity-tutorials
>  
> 
> 
> 
> “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless”
> 
> NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA
> CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045
> EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com
> Skype : vinsolo2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: vincent solomon <vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
> Sent: Monday, 28 January 2013, 15:32
> Subject: How to protect your Identity 
> 
> Watch how you can protect your identity online.
> 
> http://www.internetsociety.org/manage-your-identity
>  
> 
> 
> 
> “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless”
> 
> NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA
> CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045
> EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com
> Skype : vinsolo2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/d4992150/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Fri Feb  1 08:36:58 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:36:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
In-Reply-To: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com>
References: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com>

Great. Keep the paranoia on the front page.
Sounds like Jo McCarthy's times.
Louis
- - -

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 7:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> Some of you may have missed this invitation...
>
> M
>
> -------------------------------------------
> http://www.netcaucus.org/conference/2013/wcit.shtml
>
> No Rest for the WCIT*: Charting An Affirmative Plan to Safeguarding
> Internet
> Freedom!
> Tuesday, January 22 2013
>
> AUDIO : http://www.netcaucus.org/audio/2013/20130122sotn-wcit.mp3
>
> Panelists:
> - Fiona Alexander, Associate Administrator, Office of International
> Affairs,
> National Telecommunications & Information Administration
> (NTIA)
> - Colin Crowell, Head of Global Public Policy, Twitter
> - Jamie Hedlund, Vice President, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> and
> Numbers (ICANN)
> - Andrew McLaughlin, Chairman of the Board, Access
> - Thomas O'Toole, Managing Editor, Electronic Commerce & Law Report,
> Bloomberg BNA - Moderator
>
> It remains to be seen whether Internet stakeholders have prevented the UN
> from seizing control of the Internet at last month's ITU World Conference
> on
> International Telecommunications (WCIT). Regardless, for weary negotiators
> it appears that the battle to keep the Internet free will be protracted.
> There will ne no rest in the foreseeable future.
>
> On December 13, 2012 FCC Commissioner McDowell direly predicted that while
> many of the "anti-freedom" WCIT proposals were turned back "the worst is
> yet
> to come." More than ever Congress must become a more involved stakeholder.
> Any substantive changes to the ITU treaty governing the Internet hopefully
> would need to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. But threats to Internet
> freedom could come from a variety of vectors. A panel of experts will
> outline the long-term prospects for the Internet freedom fight and how
> Congress can play a more consistent and constructive role.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/1edfe978/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb  1 08:51:12 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:51:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] The NomCom has been constituted
Message-ID: <20130201145112.3e74b844@quill.bollow.ch>

[IGC Coordinator hat on]

Dear all

The NomCom has been constituted. See below for a copy of the email that
I just sent to the members of the NomCom.

Sala and I wish to hereby express our sincere thanks also to those who
participated in the NomCom selection process without getting selected.
You have thereby mande an important contribution to our ability as a
Caucus to run a proper NomCom process.

Greetings,
Norbert 

--snip------------------------------------------------------------------

[IGC Coordinator hat on]

Dear Guru, dear Voting NomCom Members

First, on behalf of Sala and myself, let me thank you again for your
willingness to serve Civil Society in general and the IGC in particular
as members of the NomCom tasked with selecting Civil Society nominees
for the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation.

Sala and I are hereby appointing Gurumurthy Kasinathan (Guru) as
Non-Voting Chair for this NomCom.

I will make a few more remarks about the task before you, but after
this I believe the NomCom to be independent of the IGC Coordinators in
the sense that we as coordinators should not be guiding your work. In
fact, if Guru desires practical advice on the role of Non-Voting Chair,
it may be more appropriate to request such advice from previous
Non-Voting Chairs of IGC NomComs than from the IGC Coordinators.

There is some preliminary information on the CSTD WG on Enhanced
Cooperation available at the CSTD website, it's currently the top item
on http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . My understanding is that that
Feb 8 deadline does not apply to us, but rather to governments which
are CSTD members and who may want to provide feedback on the plan. The
actual call for nominations, to which IGC should respond with the
results of your work, is to my best knowledge expected to be published
later but before the end of in February.

http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process provides the following rules and
guidance for your work:

    Whenever possible, one month will be used to constitute the nomcom
    and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and
    one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates.

    All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be
    disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team
    being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be
    disqualified from being chosen.

    Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by
    the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made

    All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will their
    applications and other information

    The nomcom chair will put out a report after the selection giving a
    description of the internal processes used in the selection.

    Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be
    disbanded after the decision is made.

Some additional thoughts:

* Guru, it might be a good idea to start out by explicitly reconfirming
  with each of the NomCom members that they're able to serve in this
  role. (If that is not the case for all, call on the first reserve and
  if necessary also on the second reserve.)

* The Caucus has several members who are experienced in dealing with
  the CSTD. The NomCom has complete freedom to ask the Caucus for
  advice regarding selection criteria even in advance of the "review
  of the criteria" step foreseen in the charter. The NomCom has complete
  freedom to choose to accept or reject such advice for any reason.
  However I would suggest that the reasons for such decisions should be
  documented in the report. 

* Sine no-one will do this for you, it will be a responsibility of the
  NomCom to make, at an appropriate time, an invitation to the
  mailing list inviting those who are interested in serving on the
  Enhanced Cooperation WG to express their interest. You may choose
  to invite them to also submit supporting documentation (e.g.
  expressions of support from other organizations).

* If the NomCom considers it appropriate for such supporting
  documentation to be forwarded to the CSTD, it will be good to make
  this clear from the beginning, so that people will know that it might
  be worthwhile to invest a bit of extra effort.

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 pouzin at well.com  Fri Feb  1 09:25:08 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:25:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] Worth a read: The US, WCIT and the TPP
In-Reply-To: <180001ce001f$96c32280$c4496780$@gmail.com>
References: <180001ce001f$96c32280$c4496780$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYp_h3UsSe-SCiUaeuyr25cLrBrVjYt+GPecMydEmEuxGw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:57 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/18125521229/us-hypocrisy-supports-
>
> open-dialog-internet-governance-wcit-full-secrecy-parallel-tpp-negotiations.
> shtml
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c6re7wr
>
> M
> - - -
>

Hypocrisy is the rule in real politics. USG and Google hullabaloo on
internet freedom, transparency, ITU threats, etc. is obviously a
smokescreen for hiding their real practices. It only fools the gullibles.

Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/40864f19/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Feb  1 09:47:27 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 20:17:27 +0530
Subject: [governance] Worth a read: The US, WCIT and the TPP
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYp_h3UsSe-SCiUaeuyr25cLrBrVjYt+GPecMydEmEuxGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <180001ce001f$96c32280$c4496780$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYp_h3UsSe-SCiUaeuyr25cLrBrVjYt+GPecMydEmEuxGw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13c9639d164.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Some more detail please?

--srs (htc one x)



On 1 February 2013 7:55:08 PM "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:57 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121204/18125521229/us-hypocrisy-supports-
> >
> > open-dialog-internet-governance-wcit-full-secrecy-parallel-tpp-negotiations.
> > shtml
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/c6re7wr
> >
> > M
> > - - -
> >
>
> Hypocrisy is the rule in real politics. USG and Google hullabaloo on
> internet freedom, transparency, ITU threats, etc. is obviously a
> smokescreen for hiding their real practices. It only fools the gullibles.
>
> Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/2342be0a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb  1 10:33:41 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:33:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <08EAADBD-7AA9-4EFD-BEE6-CC5D45B8888A@ciroap.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130127120551.1db0b299@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CAFabd1K3LNvcTcyouYSeuxmp_=+fKs=_CSoaisTQThX53X5UGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<51051017.80103@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1JYEX2frbvWmEP9o-BRRqm1wKEPGi07ZjnVUHGy3U3q5w@mail.gmail.com>
	<BD7D7AE3-FF9C-421A-AA2D-418E477EF468@privaterra.org>
	<20130128160554.50c4cfa4@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130128152553.GA22217@hserus.net>
	<20130128170918.580f9cf3@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130131125841.3dde960c@quill.bollow.ch>
	<08EAADBD-7AA9-4EFD-BEE6-CC5D45B8888A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20130201163341.1d1121e7@quill.bollow.ch>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 31/01/2013, at 7:58 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > Could you please have a look at Baudouin Schombe's comments on
> > paragraphs 4 and 5 of the draft text at
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
> > 
> > Maybe someone is able to make a good specific suggestion on how to
> > improve our draft text on the basis of these comments?
> 
> 
> This is a bit wordy but "Main sessions and workshops should not be
> competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic
> coalition members to the broader community of IGF participants,
> including those with influence over or connections to processes of
> policy development.  Main sessions have the potential to allow for
> high-level consensus-building and strategising on how these insights
> can be reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere,
> sometimes across issue areas: for example, messages on critical
> Internet resources might also be relevant to those involved in
> security or openness issues and vice versa.  Therefore main sessions
> should not be treated as just "big workshops" relevant only to those
> with topical interests, but should be for the broadest possible
> segment of the IGF community to attend.  This means not scheduling at
> least some key main sessions (but perhaps fewer of them overall) that
> do not coincide with workshops."

Thanks a lot Jeremy. I've added essentially all of this to the
beginning of paragraph 4 for now (making that paragraph overly long,
but we can fix that later - if we subdivide a paragrah now, that'll
mess up the correspondence between paragraohs and comments).

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  Fri Feb  1 10:42:41 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:42:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>

Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> >
> > > re Main sessions.
> > > *Only two *90min main sessions.
> > > One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
> > > Interpretation only in english.
> > > Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
> >
> > Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
> > like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
> > session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
> > [1] http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
> >
> > If so, why?
>
> Yes Norbert.
> 
> Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
> celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
> truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
> because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
> that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
> 
> One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
> means. Result will tell.
> 
> Workshops are more effective because:
> - there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
> one,
> - speakers use spontaneous language,
> - there are more interactions with the attendees,
> - specific topics fit better with a small room,
> - it's easier to identify who is there.
> 
> On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
> english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
> could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
> various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
> (Chicagoan).

Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
that is truly taken seriously.

So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
of them.

So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
request.

What do the others think?

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Fri Feb  1 11:28:46 2013
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:58:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] OPEN CALL FOR the India MAG 2013
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0HYiwRpmHSyF2B_oz7VptKCpx8QcnJXasa3WE65asmGbg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

An open call for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for 2013 has
been issued.

List participants from India may please take note.

Sivasubramanian M
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/b6a0057c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MAG 2013  - Nomination Form.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 41580 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/b6a0057c/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Open Call for MAG 2013.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 23075 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/b6a0057c/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Fri Feb  1 11:59:36 2013
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 17:59:36 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <751369656.27111.1359737976523.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j34>

 + 1 Louis ! Have you caught an eye on the sposor's list ? Self-revealing, isn't it ? BTW : why is Cisco absent on the list ? Is it because of the presence of"competing"Juniper ? Best Jean-Louis Fullsack



> Message du 01/02/13 14:38
> De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "michael gurstein" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
> 
> Great. Keep the paranoia on the front page.
> Sounds like Jo McCarthy's times.
> Louis
> - - -
> 
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 7:55 PM, michael gurstein  wrote:
> Some of you may have missed this invitation...
> 
> M
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> http://www.netcaucus.org/conference/2013/wcit.shtml
> 
> No Rest for the WCIT*: Charting An Affirmative Plan to Safeguarding Internet
> Freedom!
> Tuesday, January 22 2013
> 
> AUDIO : http://www.netcaucus.org/audio/2013/20130122sotn-wcit.mp3
> 
> Panelists:
> - Fiona Alexander, Associate Administrator, Office of International Affairs,
> National Telecommunications & Information Administration
> (NTIA)
> - Colin Crowell, Head of Global Public Policy, Twitter
> - Jamie Hedlund, Vice President, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers (ICANN)
> - Andrew McLaughlin, Chairman of the Board, Access
> - Thomas O'Toole, Managing Editor, Electronic Commerce & Law Report,
> Bloomberg BNA - Moderator
> 
> It remains to be seen whether Internet stakeholders have prevented the UN
> from seizing control of the Internet at last month's ITU World Conference on
> International Telecommunications (WCIT). Regardless, for weary negotiators
> it appears that the battle to keep the Internet free will be protracted.
> There will ne no rest in the foreseeable future.
> 
> On December 13, 2012 FCC Commissioner McDowell direly predicted that while
> many of the "anti-freedom" WCIT proposals were turned back "the worst is yet
> to come." More than ever Congress must become a more involved stakeholder.
> Any substantive changes to the ITU treaty governing the Internet hopefully
> would need to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. But threats to Internet
> freedom could come from a variety of vectors. A panel of experts will
> outline the long-term prospects for the Internet freedom fight and how
> Congress can play a more consistent and constructive role.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
>
> 


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130201/66d3807d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com  Fri Feb  1 16:30:33 2013
From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 01:30:33 +0400
Subject: [governance] Reporters without borders released 2013 World Press
 Freedom Index
Message-ID: <CAPVtau=hi=PUwfrNHrakmtsUoxFPa8gA8742YKUppj1S9X4sNg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Reporters without borders released 2013 World Press Freedom Index: ‘Dashed
Hopes after Spring’.

(http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html)

 Download the report
<http://fr.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/classement_2013_gb-bd.pdf> Download
the 2013 world press freedom
map<http://fr.rsf.org/IMG/jpg/2013-carte-liberte-presse_1900.jpg>


After the “Arab springs” and other protest movements that prompted many
rises and falls in last year’s index, the 2013 Reporters Without Borders
World Press Freedom Index marks a return to a more usual configuration. The
ranking of most countries is no longer attributable to dramatic political
developments. This year’s index is a better reflection of the attitudes and
intentions of governments towards media freedom in the medium or long term.

The same three European countries that headed the index last year hold the
top three positions again this year. For the third year running, *Finland* has
distinguished itself as the country that most respects media freedom. It is
followed by the *Netherlands* and *Norway*. Although many criteria are
considered, ranging from legislation to violence against journalists,
democratic countries occupy the top of the index while dictatorial
countries occupy the last three positions. Again it is the same three as
last year – *Turkmenistan*, *North Korea* and *Eritrea*.

“The Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders does not
take direct account of the kind of political system but it is clear that
democracies provide better protection for the freedom to produce and
circulate accurate news and information than countries where human rights
are flouted,” Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Christophe
Deloire said. “In dictatorships, news providers and their families are
exposed to ruthless reprisals, while in democracies news providers have to
cope with the media’s economic crises and conflicts of interest. While
their situation is not always comparable, we should pay tribute to all
those who resist pressure whether it is aggressively focused or diffuse.”

Coinciding with the release of its 2013 Press Freedom Index, Reporters
Without Borders is for the first time publishing an annual global
“indicator” of worldwide media freedom. This new analytic tool measures the
overall level of freedom of information in the world and the performance of
the world’s governments in their entirety as regards this key freedom In
view of the emergence of new technologies and the interdependence of
governments and peoples, the freedom to produce and circulate news and
information needs to be evaluated at the planetary as well as national
level. Today, in 2013, the media freedom “indicator” stands at 3395, a
point of reference for the years to come.

The indicator can also be broken down by region and, by means of weighting
based on the population of each region, can be used to produce a score from
zero to 100 in which zero represents total respect for media freedom. This
produces a score of 17.5 for Europe, 30.0 for the Americas, 34.3 for
Africa, 42.2 for Asia-Pacific and 45.3 for the former Soviet republics.
Despite the Arab springs, the Middle East and North Africa region comes
last with 48.5.

The high number of journalists and netizens killed in the course of their
work in 2012 (the deadliest year ever registered by Reporters Without
Borders in its annual roundup), naturally had a significant impact on the
ranking of the countries where these murders took place, above all *Somalia*
 (175th, -11), *Syria*(176th, 0), *Mexico* (153rd, -4) and *Pakistan* (159th,
-8).

*From top to bottom*

The Nordic countries have again demonstrated their ability to maintain an
optimal environment for news providers. *Finland* (1er, 0), *Netherlands* (2nd,
+1) and *Norway* (3rd, -2) have held on to the first three places.
*Canada* (20th,
-10) only just avoided dropping out of the top 20. *Andorra* (5th) and*
Liechtenstein* (7th) have entered the index for the first time just behind
the three leaders.

At the other end of the index, the same three countries as ever –
Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea – occupy the last three places in the
index. Kim Jong-un’s arrival at the head of the Hermit Kingdom has not in
any way changed the regime’s absolute control of news and information. *
Eritrea*(179th, 0), which was recently shaken by a brief mutiny by soldiers
at the information
ministry<http://en.rsf.org/eritrea-what-really-happened-at-asmara-s-24-01-2013,43947.html>,
continues to be a vast open prison for its people and lets journalists die
in detention. Despite its reformist discourse, the Turkmen regime has not
yielded an inch of its totalitarian control of the media.

For the second year running, the bottom three countries are immediately
preceded by *Syria* (176th, 0), where a deadly information war is being
waged, and *Somalia* (175th, -11), which has had a deadly year for
journalists. *Iran* (174th, +1), *China* (173rd, +1), *Vietnam* (unchanged
at 172nd), *Cuba*(171st, -4), *Sudan* (170th, 0) and *Yemen* (169th, +2)
complete the list of the ten countries that respect media freedom least.
Not content with imprisoning journalists and netizens, Iran also harasses
the relatives of
journalists<http://en.rsf.org/iran-threats-against-media-workers-and-09-01-2013,43883.html>,
including the relatives of those who are abroad.

*Big rises...*

*Malawi* (75th, +71) registered the biggest leap in the index, almost
returning to the position it held before the excesses at the end of the
Mutharika administration. *Côte d’Ivoire* (96th, +63), which is emerging
from the post-electoral crisis between the supporters of Laurent Gbagbo and
Alassane Ouattara, has also soared, attaining its best position since 2003.
*Burma* (151st, +18) continued the ascent begun in last year’s index.
Previously, it had been in the bottom 15 every year since 2002 but now,
thanks to the Burmese spring’s unprecedented reforms, it has reached its
best-ever position. *Afghanistan* (128th, +22) also registered a
significant rise thanks to the fact that no journalists are in prison. It
is nonetheless facing many challenges, especially with the withdrawal of
foreign troops.

*...and big falls*

*Mali* (99th, -74) registered the biggest fall in the index as a result of
all the turmoil in 2012. The military coup in Bamako on 22 March and the
north’s takeover by armed Islamists and Tuareg separatists exposed the
media in the north to censorship and violence. *Tanzania* (70th, -36) sank
more than 30 places because, in the space of four months, a journalist was
killed while covering a demonstration and another was murdered.

Buffeted by social and economic protests, the *Sultanate of Oman* (141st)
sank 24 places, the biggest fall in the Middle East and North Africa in
2012. Some 50 netizens and bloggers were prosecuted on lèse majesté or
cyber-crime charges in 2012. No fewer than 28 were convicted in December
alone, in trials that trampled on defence rights.

Journalists in *Israel* (112th, -20) enjoy real freedom of expression
despite the existence of military censorship but the country fell in the
index because of the Israeli military’s targeting of journalists in the
Palestinian Territories.

In Asia, *Japan* (53rd, -31) has been affected by a lack of transparency and
 almost zero respect for access to
information<http://en.rsf.org/japon-journalists-barred-from-anti-06-11-2012,43640.html>
 on subjects directly or indirectly related to Fukushima. This sharp fall
should sound an alarm. *Malaysia* (145th, -23) has fallen to its
lowest-ever position because access to information is becoming more and
more limited<http://en.rsf.org/malaisie-media-freedom-in-malaysia-is-far-15-05-2012,42628.html>.
The same situation prevails in *Cambodia* (143rd, -26), where
authoritarianism and censorship are on the increase. *Macedonia* (116th,
-22) has also fallen more than 20 places following the arbitrary withdrawal
of media licences and deterioration in the environment for journalists.

*Varied impact of major protest movements*

Last year’s index was marked by the Arab spring’s major news developments
and the heavy price paid by those covering the protest movements. A range
of scenarios has been seen in 2012, including countries such as *Tunisia*, *
Egypt* and *Libya*, where regime change has taken place, countries such as
Syria and *Bahrain* where uprisings and the resulting repression are still
ongoing, and countries such as *Morocco*, *Algeria*, *Oman*, *Jordan*
and *Saudi
Arabia*, where the authorities have used promises and compromise to defuse
calls for political and/or social and economic change.

Some of the new governments spawned by these protests movements have turned
on the journalists and netizens who covered these movements’ demands and
aspirations for more freedom. With legal voids, arbitrary appointments of
state media chiefs, physical attacks, trials and a lack of transparency,*
Tunisia* (138th, -4) and *Egypt* (158th, +8) have remained at a deplorable
level in the index and have highlighted the stumbling blocks that
*Libya* (131st,
+23) should avoid in order to maintain its transition to a free press.

The deadliest country for journalists in 2012 was *Syria* (176th, 0), where
journalists and netizens are the victims of an information war waged by
both the Assad regime, which stops at nothing in order to crack down and
impose a news blackout, and by opposition factions that are increasingly
intolerant of dissent. In *Bahrain* (165th, +8) the repression let up
slightly, while in *Yemen* (169th, +2) the prospects continue to be
disturbing despite a change of government. *Oman* (141st, -24) fell sharply
because of a wave of arrests of netizens.

Other countries hit by protests saw changes for the better and worse. *
Vietnam* (172nd, 0) failed to recover the six places it lost in the
previous index. The world’s second biggest prison for netizens, it has
remained in the bottom ten. *Uganda* (104th, +35) has recovered a more
appropriate position although it has not gone back to where it was before
cracking down on protests in 2011. *Azerbaijan*(156th, +6) and
*Belarus* (157th,
+11) both fell last year after using violence to suppress opposition
demonstrations and this year they just moved back towards their appalling
former positions. *Chile*(60th, +20) is beginning to recover after
plummeting 33 places to 80th in last year’s index.

*Political instability puts journalists in the eye of the storm*

Political instability often has a divisive effect on the media and makes it
very difficult to produce independently-reported news and information. In
such situations, threats and physical attacks on journalists and staff
purges are common. *Maldives* (103rd, -30) fell sharply after the
president’s removal in an alleged coup, followed by threats and attacks on
journalists<http://en.rsf.org/maldives-international-community-s-13-02-2012,41858.html>
 regarded as his supporters. In *Paraguay* (91st, -11), the president’s
removal in a parliamentary “coup” on 22 June 2012 had a big impact on
state-owned broadcasting, with a wave of arbitrary dismissals against a
backdrop of unfair frequency allocation. *Guinea-Bissau* (92nd, -17) fell
sharply because the army overthrew the government between the first and
second rounds of a presidential election and imposed military censorship on
the media. In *Mali* (99th, -74), a military coup fuelled tension, many
journalists were physically attacked in the capital and the army now
controls the state-owned media. This index does not reflect the January
2013 turmoil in the *Central African Republic* (65th, -3) but its impact on
media freedom is already a source of extreme concern.

*“Regional models” found wanting*

In almost all parts of the world, influential countries that are regarded
as “regional models” have fallen in the index. *Brazil* (108th, -9), South
America’s economic engine, continued last year’s fall because five
journalists were killed in 2012 and because of persistent problems
affecting media pluralism. In Asia, *India* (140th, -9) is at its lowest
since 2002 because of increasing impunity for violence against journalists
and because Internet censorship continues to grow. *China* (173rd, +1)
shows no sign of improving. Its prisons still hold many journalists and
netizens, while increasingly unpopular Internet censorship continues to be
a major obstacle to access to information.

In Eastern Europe, *Russia* (148th, -6) has fallen again because, since
Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency, repression has been stepped
up<http://en.rsf.org/russia-internet-access-barred-as-wave-of-01-11-2012,43627.html>
 in response to an unprecedented wave of opposition protests. The country
also continues to be marked by the unacceptable failure to punish all those
who have murdered or attacked journalists. The political importance of *
Turkey* (154th, -6) has grown even more because of the armed conflict in
neighbouring Syria but it has again fallen in the index. It is currently the
world’s biggest prison for
journalists<http://en.rsf.org/turkey-turkey-world-s-biggest-prison-for-19-12-2012,43816.html>,
especially those who express views critical of the authorities on the
Kurdish issue. There is no comparison with *South Africa* (52nd, -10),
where freedom of information is a reality. It still has a respectable
ranking but it has been slipping steadily in the index and, for the first
time, is no longer in the top 50. Investigative journalism is threatened by
the Protection of State Information Bill.

*Democracies that stall or go into reverse*

The situation is unchanged for much of the European Union. Sixteen of its
members are still in the top 30. But the European model is unravelling. The
bad legislation seen in 2011 continued, especially in*Italy* (57th, +4),
where defamation has yet to be
decriminalized<http://en.rsf.org/italy-senate-wants-to-keep-threat-of-25-11-2012,43725.html>
 and state agencies make dangerous use of gag laws. *Hungary* (56th, -16)
is still paying the price of its repressive legislative
reforms<http://en.rsf.org/hongrie-hungary-s-media-law-is-08-03-2011,39721.html>,
which had a major impact on the way journalists work. But
*Greece<http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rwb_greece_2011_bd2.pdf>
*’s dramatic fall (84th, -14) is even more disturbing. The social and
professional environment for its journalists, who are exposed to public
condemnation and violence from both extremist groups and the police, is
disastrous.

*Japan* (53rd, -31) plummeted because of censorship of nuclear industry
coverage<https://www.wefightcensorship.org/censored/japan-freelance-journalist-sued-over-nuclear-industry-articlehtml.html>
 and its failure to reform the “kisha club” system. This is an alarming
fall for a country that usually has a good ranking.*Argentina* (54th, -7)
fell amid growing tension between the government and certain
privately-owned media about a new law regulating the broadcast media.


Kind regards,
Narine Khachatryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130202/e2b50f2e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kovenronald at aol.com  Sat Feb  2 08:50:10 2013
From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 08:50:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [governance] Google pledges $60 million to French press
Message-ID: <8CFCF635A0CF017-8D8-69147@webmail-m084.sysops.aol.com>


http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/02/01/negociations-en-cours-entre-google-et-les-patrons-de-presse_1826134_651865.html#xtor=EPR-32280229-[NL_Titresdujour]-20130202-[titres]
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130202/0313308f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Sat Feb  2 12:45:53 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 18:45:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
In-Reply-To: <751369656.27111.1359737976523.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j34>
References: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <751369656.27111.1359737976523.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j34>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYqo0oGkwwH4ScuuKiXKtOV55BW3EZnrZOrVUbsO=gskCw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:59 PM, <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> + 1 Louis !
>
> Have you caught an eye on the sposor's list ? Self-revealing, isn't it ?
> BTW : why is Cisco absent on the list ? Is it because of the presence
> of"competing"Juniper ?
>
> Best
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
> - - -
>
I don't know.  AT&T is also missing.
They may have a better perception of ITU sociology.

Louis
- - -

 Message du 01/02/13 14:38

> > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)"
> > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "michael gurstein"
> >
> > Great. Keep the paranoia on the front page.
> > Sounds like Jo McCarthy's times.
> > Louis
> > - - -
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130202/1e56a324/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Sat Feb  2 17:44:23 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 17:44:23 -0500
Subject: [governance] Dispute settlement Far West style
In-Reply-To: <ctevuunht8osqmgndrb7ektr.1359661997375@email.android.com>
References: <ctevuunht8osqmgndrb7ektr.1359661997375@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLtDzeBV7_SHj9eUM_-Hjf0g2hizivRpMmTYYHxJuaX39g@mail.gmail.com>

¿Sera verdad? o solamente es un juego de distracción, esta organización
responde a los intereses norteamericanos...


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/1/31 Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>

> Very cool !!
>
> --c.a.
>
>
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
>
> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Cool! ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Louis
> Pouzin (well)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:47 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* [governance] Dispute settlement Far West style****
>
> ** **
>
> Is online gambling an issue in internet governance ?
> Whatever the answer, for some countries it could open new ways to break
> the USG blockade on burning IG issues.
> Read on.
> - - -
>
> January 28, 2013. WTO: Antigua To Retaliate Against US By Suspending IP
> Rights Protection
>
> After years of unsuccessful negotiations between nations, the World Trade
> Organization Dispute Settlement Body today gave Antigua and Barbuda the
> right to impose sanctions against the United States for blocking online
> gambling. The US was found in violation of WTO rules in 2007 and has failed
> to resolve the issue, so the Caribbean nation was given the right to
> retaliate in an area that is likely to force a US response - lifting US
> intellectual property rights.
>
>
> http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=25928&utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts
>
> ****
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130202/5c8d2fb8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sat Feb  2 18:26:22 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:26:22 -0800
Subject: [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0464D524-5EB9-4634-864E-49AF7F33F640@acm.org>

Hi,

Having now listened to the conversation, I find you comments curious.

In what way did it keep paranoia alive?  Whose paranoia? Of what?

And I must say, being somewhat conversant with the Joe McCarthy and the Times, that I did not understand this point either, can you explain the ways in which this was McCarthyesque.


thanks

avri



On 1 Feb 2013, at 05:36, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:

> Great. Keep the paranoia on the front page.
> Sounds like Jo McCarthy's times.
> Louis
> - - -
> 
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 7:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Some of you may have missed this invitation...
> 
> M
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> http://www.netcaucus.org/conference/2013/wcit.shtml
> 
> No Rest for the WCIT*: Charting An Affirmative Plan to Safeguarding Internet
> Freedom!
> Tuesday, January 22 2013
> 
> AUDIO : http://www.netcaucus.org/audio/2013/20130122sotn-wcit.mp3
> 
> Panelists:
> - Fiona Alexander, Associate Administrator, Office of International Affairs,
> National Telecommunications & Information Administration
> (NTIA)
> - Colin Crowell, Head of Global Public Policy, Twitter
> - Jamie Hedlund, Vice President, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers (ICANN)
> - Andrew McLaughlin, Chairman of the Board, Access
> - Thomas O'Toole, Managing Editor, Electronic Commerce & Law Report,
> Bloomberg BNA - Moderator
> 
> It remains to be seen whether Internet stakeholders have prevented the UN
> from seizing control of the Internet at last month's ITU World Conference on
> International Telecommunications (WCIT). Regardless, for weary negotiators
> it appears that the battle to keep the Internet free will be protracted.
> There will ne no rest in the foreseeable future.
> 
> On December 13, 2012 FCC Commissioner McDowell direly predicted that while
> many of the "anti-freedom" WCIT proposals were turned back "the worst is yet
> to come." More than ever Congress must become a more involved stakeholder.
> Any substantive changes to the ITU treaty governing the Internet hopefully
> would need to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. But threats to Internet
> freedom could come from a variety of vectors. A panel of experts will
> outline the long-term prospects for the Internet freedom fight and how
> Congress can play a more consistent and constructive role.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Feb  2 23:50:31 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:20:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>


Apologies for being late into this important discussion.

I will comment separately on the discussions that have taken place upto 
now and the evolving text. However, I think we should first of all seek 
that MAG implements the recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements, 
especially on the following counts
  (below are all quotes from the WG's report)

"To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should 
formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as part 
of the overall discussion. The results of the debates of these 
questions, with special focus on public policy perspectives and aimed at 
capacity building, should be stated in the outcome documentation."

"The outcome documentation should include messages that map out 
converging and diverging opinions on given questions."

"…...identifying pertinent key policy questions around which main 
sessions for the IGF will be  structured. In order to enhance the 
bottom-up process and to facilitate the identification of key policy 
questions, the Secretariat could also issue the call for workshop 
proposals before the first Open Consultation."

(quotes end)

There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis  a vis the 
fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy 
questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of. For 
tooo long it has remained caught in matters of process and form. It is 
time to do what it really needed to do.

parminder



On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>> Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> re Main sessions.
>>>> *Only two *90min main sessions.
>>>> One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
>>>> Interpretation only in english.
>>>> Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
>>> Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
>>> like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
>>> session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
>>> [1] http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
>>>
>>> If so, why?
>> Yes Norbert.
>>
>> Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
>> celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
>> truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
>> because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
>> that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
>>
>> One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
>> means. Result will tell.
>>
>> Workshops are more effective because:
>> - there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
>> one,
>> - speakers use spontaneous language,
>> - there are more interactions with the attendees,
>> - specific topics fit better with a small room,
>> - it's easier to identify who is there.
>>
>> On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
>> english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
>> could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
>> various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
>> (Chicagoan).
> Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
> making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
> give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
> just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
> and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
> that is truly taken seriously.
>
> So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
> the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
> for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
> of them.
>
> So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
> request.
>
> What do the others think?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130203/7acec02d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb  3 00:05:20 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:35:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <510DF010.3040100@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 03 February 2013 10:20 AM, parminder wrote:
> <snip>
>
> There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis  a vis the 
> fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy 
> questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of. For 
> tooo long it has remained caught in matters of process and form. It is 
> time to do what it really needed to do.

In keeping with the spirit of the recs of the WG on IGF improvements, 
civil society/ IGC need to debate on what it considers are the key 
public policy questions in the IG space today, and recommend some of 
them to be taken up by the Baku IGF.

I proposes that the following policy question be taken up at Baku, for 
the cited reasons.

"How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of 
the global Internet, and what the mechanisms and institutions involved 
in this process?"

In my estimate this is indeed 'a' if not 'the' key public policy 
question in the IG space today.

It was the key issue at WCIT (ETNO proposal), and indeed at the BestBits 
civil society meeting, in terms of whether an ITU like institution has a 
role in the Net neutrality issue, and if so how, at what level - at the 
ITRs level or otherwise.

Net neutrality (NN) issue indeed lies at the centre of ITU controversy - 
at least for those who do not see ITU as the place to build statist 
leverage for content control and over domain name space - with the issue 
being whether NN like issues of infrastructural neutrality lies in ITU's 
realm and by extension of the paradigm, in the realm of respective 
Telecom regulators at the national levels.

In the US (and also many other countries) a fundamental, paradigm 
invoking, struggle about NN and insitutional competencies of various 
actors is playing out rather intensely right now...

How things move in the above regard, in the next 2-3 years, will set the 
basic architectural and regulatory principles about the Internet. 
Whereby,  this appears to be 'the' key public policy question that must 
be taken up by the IGF.

parminder



>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> Louis Pouzin<pouzin at well.com>  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>  wrote:
>>>> Louis Pouzin<pouzin at well.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> re Main sessions.
>>>>> *Only two *90min main sessions.
>>>>> One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
>>>>> Interpretation only in english.
>>>>> Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
>>>> Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
>>>> like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
>>>> session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
>>>> [1]http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
>>>>
>>>> If so, why?
>>> Yes Norbert.
>>>
>>> Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
>>> celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
>>> truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
>>> because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
>>> that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
>>>
>>> One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
>>> means. Result will tell.
>>>
>>> Workshops are more effective because:
>>> - there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
>>> one,
>>> - speakers use spontaneous language,
>>> - there are more interactions with the attendees,
>>> - specific topics fit better with a small room,
>>> - it's easier to identify who is there.
>>>
>>> On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
>>> english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
>>> could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
>>> various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
>>> (Chicagoan).
>> Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
>> making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
>> give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
>> just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
>> and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
>> that is truly taken seriously.
>>
>> So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
>> the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
>> for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
>> of them.
>>
>> So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
>> request.
>>
>> What do the others think?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130203/86b00d77/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb  3 01:03:09 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 11:33:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <510DF010.3040100@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <510DF010.3040100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <510DFD9D.4080103@itforchange.net>


I agree with  earlier proposals (adam and others) that a full day with 
various possible different formats be devoted to one key theme (which I 
propose be as a clerly laid out policy question, as also recommended by 
the WG on IGF)

I think it is time to move on from generic hold all sessions that the 
IGF still mostly consists of..

parminder

On Sunday 03 February 2013 10:35 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Sunday 03 February 2013 10:20 AM, parminder wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis  a vis the 
>> fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy 
>> questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of. 
>> For tooo long it has remained caught in matters of process and form. 
>> It is time to do what it really needed to do.
>
> In keeping with the spirit of the recs of the WG on IGF improvements, 
> civil society/ IGC need to debate on what it considers are the key 
> public policy questions in the IG space today, and recommend some of 
> them to be taken up by the Baku IGF.
>
> I proposes that the following policy question be taken up at Baku, for 
> the cited reasons.
>
> "How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of 
> the global Internet, and what the mechanisms and institutions involved 
> in this process?"
>
> In my estimate this is indeed 'a' if not 'the' key public policy 
> question in the IG space today.
>
> It was the key issue at WCIT (ETNO proposal), and indeed at the 
> BestBits civil society meeting, in terms of whether an ITU like 
> institution has a role in the Net neutrality issue, and if so how, at 
> what level - at the ITRs level or otherwise.
>
> Net neutrality (NN) issue indeed lies at the centre of ITU controversy 
> - at least for those who do not see ITU as the place to build statist 
> leverage for content control and over domain name space - with the 
> issue being whether NN like issues of infrastructural neutrality lies 
> in ITU's realm and by extension of the paradigm, in the realm of 
> respective Telecom regulators at the national levels.
>
> In the US (and also many other countries) a fundamental, paradigm 
> invoking, struggle about NN and insitutional competencies of various 
> actors is playing out rather intensely right now...
>
> How things move in the above regard, in the next 2-3 years, will set 
> the basic architectural and regulatory principles about the Internet. 
> Whereby,  this appears to be 'the' key public policy question that 
> must be taken up by the IGF.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> Louis Pouzin<pouzin at well.com>  wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow<nb at bollow.ch>  wrote:
>>>>> Louis Pouzin<pouzin at well.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> re Main sessions.
>>>>>> *Only two *90min main sessions.
>>>>>> One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
>>>>>> Interpretation only in english.
>>>>>> Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
>>>>> Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
>>>>> like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
>>>>> session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
>>>>> [1]http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, why?
>>>> Yes Norbert.
>>>>
>>>> Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
>>>> celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
>>>> truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
>>>> because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
>>>> that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
>>>>
>>>> One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
>>>> means. Result will tell.
>>>>
>>>> Workshops are more effective because:
>>>> - there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
>>>> one,
>>>> - speakers use spontaneous language,
>>>> - there are more interactions with the attendees,
>>>> - specific topics fit better with a small room,
>>>> - it's easier to identify who is there.
>>>>
>>>> On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
>>>> english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
>>>> could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
>>>> various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
>>>> (Chicagoan).
>>> Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
>>> making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
>>> give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
>>> just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
>>> and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
>>> that is truly taken seriously.
>>>
>>> So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
>>> the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
>>> for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
>>> of them.
>>>
>>> So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
>>> request.
>>>
>>> What do the others think?
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130203/6af915d7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 02:30:45 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 23:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Re. participate in poll to amend the IGC charter
Message-ID: <1359876645.11608.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Would you please
inform me the method in which some one can choose single item from a proposed
amendments.
for example in case of amendment #1, there are two changes are
proposed:
Changes proposed:

1. Indicate that the affirmation is prior to the vote and not part of the vote.
2. require that all ballot include the ability to abstain.
 
How I can choose to vote for any one option if I am not feeling comfortable
to select the both?
 
Please help me to understand and to cast my vote.
 
Thanks
 
Imran Ahmed Shah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130202/049a4847/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Sun Feb  3 03:00:32 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 09:00:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re. participate in poll to amend the IGC charter
In-Reply-To: <1359876645.11608.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1359876645.11608.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20130203090032.0ad0268c@quill.bollow.ch>

[IGC Coordinator hat on]

Hello Imran,
those two changes are part of a single proposed amendment; at the
current stage there is no way to agree with only one of them.
Greetings,
Norbert


Am Sat, 2 Feb 2013 23:30:45 -0800 (PST)
schrieb Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:

> Would you please
> inform me the method in which some one can choose single item from a
> proposed amendments.
> for example in case of amendment #1, there are two changes are
> proposed:
> Changes proposed:
> 
> 1. Indicate that the affirmation is prior to the vote and not part of
> the vote. 2. require that all ballot include the ability to abstain.
>  
> How I can choose to vote for any one option if I am not feeling
> comfortable to select the both?
>  
> Please help me to understand and to cast my vote.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Imran Ahmed Shah

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  3 03:01:50 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 17:01:50 +0900
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
References:  <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
 <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <p06240800cd33c98bc62f@[192.168.1.125]>

Parminder, could you send a link to IGF Improvements working group's report(s).

Has there been a discussion on the list about the WG's recommendations?

Thanks,

Adam




>Apologies for being late into this important discussion.
>
>I will comment separately on the discussions 
>that have taken place upto now and the evolving 
>text. However, I think we should first of all 
>seek that MAG implements the recommendations of 
>the WG on IGF Improvements, especially on the 
>following counts
>  (below are all quotes from the WG's report)
>
>"To focus discussions, the preparation process 
>of each IGF should formulate a set of policy 
>questions to be considered at the IGF, as part 
>of the overall discussion. The results of the 
>debates of these questions, with special focus 
>on public policy perspectives and aimed at 
>capacity building, should be stated in the 
>outcome documentation."
>
>"The outcome documentation should include 
>messages that map out converging and diverging 
>opinions on given questions."
>
>
>
>"Š...identifying pertinent key policy questions 
>around which main sessions for the IGF will be 
>structured. In order to enhance the bottom-up 
>process and to facilitate the identification of 
>key policy questions, the Secretariat could also 
>issue the call for workshop proposals before the 
>first Open Consultation."
>
>
>
>(quotes end)
>
>There has been a sense of impatience and great 
>urgency vis  a vis the fact that IGF has really 
>not addressed key global public policy questions 
>that it was created to contribute towards 
>resolution of. For tooo long it has remained 
>caught in matters of process and form. It is 
>time to do what it really needed to do.
>
>parminder
>
>
>
>On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>>Louis Pouzin <mailto:pouzin at well.com><pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert 
>>>Bollow <mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Louis Pouzin <mailto:pouzin at well.com><pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>re Main sessions.
>>>>>*Only two *90min main sessions.
>>>>>One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
>>>>>Interpretation only in english.
>>>>>Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
>>>>like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
>>>>session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
>>>>[1] 
>>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79>http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
>>>>
>>>>If so, why?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes Norbert.
>>>
>>>Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
>>>celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
>>>truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
>>>because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
>>>that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
>>>
>>>One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
>>>means. Result will tell.
>>>
>>>Workshops are more effective because:
>>>- there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
>>>one,
>>>- speakers use spontaneous language,
>>>- there are more interactions with the attendees,
>>>- specific topics fit better with a small room,
>>>- it's easier to identify who is there.
>>>
>>>On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
>>>english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
>>>could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
>>>various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
>>>(Chicagoan).
>>>
>>
>>Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
>>making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
>>give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
>>just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
>>and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
>>that is truly taken seriously.
>>
>>So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
>>the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
>>for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
>>of them.
>>
>>So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
>>request.
>>
>>What do the others think?
>>
>>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 nb at bollow.ch  Sun Feb  3 03:18:43 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 09:18:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Charter amendments voting underway
Message-ID: <20130203091843.03919e62@quill.bollow.ch>

[IGC Coordinator hat on]

Dear all

Those who voted in the recent coordinator election (interpreted
generously in the sense that bailing out after the self-affirmation as
a Caucus member counts as having voted) should have received an email
with a personal voting link.

For each of the four amendment proposals, there is the choice of voting
"yes", "no", or "no answer".

The poll runs until 13.02.2013 00:00 server time which is approximately
set to EST.

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 ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 03:22:15 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 00:22:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Re. participate in poll to amend the IGC charter
In-Reply-To: <20130203090032.0ad0268c@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <1359876645.11608.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130203090032.0ad0268c@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <1359879735.3811.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Dear Norbert, 
You are witness of the
conflict of opinion during the discussion about abstaining, I think this option
has to be incorporated while preparing the survey poll. Section wise selection
was as important as the abstain option is.
Being a member, my vote
is important. Please suggest me, who to do it?
Best Regards
 
Imran

>________________________________
> From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: IGC coordinators <coordinators at igcaucus.org> 
>Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 13:00
>Subject: Re: [governance] Re. participate in poll to amend the IGC charter
>  
>[IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
>Hello Imran,
>those two changes are part of a single proposed amendment; at the
>current stage there is no way to agree with only one of them.
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>
>Am Sat, 2 Feb 2013 23:30:45 -0800 (PST)
>schrieb Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
>
>> Would you please
>> inform me the method in which some one can choose single item from a
>> proposed amendments.
>> for example in case of amendment #1, there are two changes are
>> proposed:
>> Changes proposed:
>> 
>> 1. Indicate that the affirmation is prior to the vote and not part of
>> the vote. 2. require that all ballot include the ability to abstain.
>>  
>> How I can choose to vote for any one option if I am not feeling
>> comfortable to select the both?
>>  
>> Please help me to understand and to cast my vote.
>>  
>> Thanks
>>  
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130203/04c61934/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Feb  3 03:27:48 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 09:27:48 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
References:  <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <510DF010.3040100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133156E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

One key issue has to be the continuation of the discussion of universal Principles of Internet Governance for a multistakeholder framework of commitments. I moderate a workshop on the issue end of February at WSIS 10+ in Paris with MAG members and it would be very good of IGC could become one of the drivers to move the process forward towards a more universal instrument/framework as disucssed in the final plenary in Baku. 
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von parminder
Gesendet: So 03.02.2013 06:05
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting



On Sunday 03 February 2013 10:20 AM, parminder wrote:


	<snip>
	
	There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis  a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of. For tooo long it has remained caught in matters of process and form. It is time to do what it really needed to do.
	


In keeping with the spirit of the recs of the WG on IGF improvements, civil society/ IGC need to debate on what it considers are the key public policy questions in the IG space today, and recommend some of them to be taken up by the Baku IGF. 

I proposes that the following policy question be taken up at Baku, for the cited reasons.

"How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of the global Internet, and what the mechanisms and institutions involved in this process?"

In my estimate this is indeed 'a' if not 'the' key public policy question in the IG space today.

It was the key issue at WCIT (ETNO proposal), and indeed at the BestBits civil society meeting, in terms of whether an ITU like institution has a role in the Net neutrality issue, and if so how, at what level - at the ITRs level or otherwise.

Net neutrality (NN) issue indeed lies at the centre of ITU controversy - at least for those who do not see ITU as the place to build statist leverage for content control and over domain name space - with the issue being whether NN like issues of infrastructural neutrality lies in ITU's realm and by extension of the paradigm, in the realm of respective Telecom regulators at the national levels. 

In the US (and also many other countries) a fundamental, paradigm invoking, struggle about NN and insitutional competencies of various actors is playing out rather intensely right now...

How things move in the above regard, in the next 2-3 years, will set the basic architectural and regulatory principles about the Internet. Whereby,  this appears to be 'the' key public policy question that must be taken up by the IGF.

parminder 






	parminder 
	

	

	
	
	
	On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
	

		Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com> <mailto:pouzin at well.com>  wrote:

			On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>  wrote:

				Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com> <mailto:pouzin at well.com>  wrote:
				

					re Main sessions.
					*Only two *90min main sessions.
					One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
					Interpretation only in english.
					Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops

				Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
				like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
				session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
				[1] http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
				
				If so, why?

			Yes Norbert.
			
			Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
			celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
			truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
			because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
			that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
			
			One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
			means. Result will tell.
			
			Workshops are more effective because:
			- there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
			one,
			- speakers use spontaneous language,
			- there are more interactions with the attendees,
			- specific topics fit better with a small room,
			- it's easier to identify who is there.
			
			On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
			english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
			could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
			various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
			(Chicagoan).

		Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
		making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
		give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
		just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
		and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
		that is truly taken seriously.
		
		So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
		the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
		for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
		of them.
		
		So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
		request.
		
		What do the others think?
		
		Greetings,
		Norbert
		




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

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Feb  3 04:23:15 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:23:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] WTPF Russia
References: <CAPVtau=hi=PUwfrNHrakmtsUoxFPa8gA8742YKUppj1S9X4sNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331573@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

FYI
 
Attached is the Russian Proposal for WTPF
 
 
wolfgang
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Russia 02 13.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55633 bytes
Desc: Russia 02 13.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130203/36e4ccff/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb  3 04:37:10 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 15:07:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <p06240800cd33c98bc62f@[192.168.1.125]>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <p06240800cd33c98bc62f@[192.168.1.125]>
Message-ID: <510E2FC6.8080805@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 03 February 2013 01:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> Parminder, could you send a link to IGF Improvements working group's 
> report(s).

unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf
>
> Has there been a discussion on the list about the WG's recommendations?

It is an interesting question. The developments at the meeting were 
presented to the IGC throughout, as well as the final outcomes... 
However, I did not find much discussion on them, which surprised me 
since IGC claims principally to be  IGF oriented.

What surprised me even further was that some of the key areas proposed 
for IGF improvements - like providing relatively clear recommendations, 
forming of issues based working groups by and in the MAG, etc,  
generally to extend MAG beyond being a mere program committee and IGF 
merely a open platform for discussions - have subsequently been strongly 
taken up by the very actors that opposed these 'improvements' within the 
WG . In this regard, the 'looking forward' session on the last day of 
Baku IGF, and the 'controversial' MAG meeting on the same day, were key 
events. But a strong inkling of what was coming was available in the the 
BAku pre-event on enhanced cooperation, and also some posting by some 
IGC members in the run up to the Baku IGF.

I am cut-pasting below excerpts from the 2012 annual report of IT for 
Change 
<http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/AnnualReport2011-12/Annualreport_full_2011-2012.pdf> 
containing a very brief report on the WG on IGF improvement, which is of 
course written for a more general audience.

Parminder


Excerpts from the ITfC annual report on WG on IGF improvements.


*Improving the UN Internet Governance Forum*

IT for Change has been one of the five civil society members of the CSTD 
Working Group on Improvements to the IGF. Over 2010-2011, we presented 
our own extensive proposals for IGF improvements 
(http://itforchange.net/UNCSTD_WGIIGF_input_papers) and also worked 
closely with the Indian government to develop what came to be called as 
the 'India proposal' (http://itforchange.net/india_report_wgiigf). This 
was a very elaborate proposal for improving the IGF to become a 
path-breaking global institution of deliberative democracy, ensuring 
very broad public participation in global Internet policy making. Much 
of the discussions of the Working Group revolved around the 'India 
proposal'. In May 2011, the CSTD extended the life of the Working Group. 
During 2011-2012, the group met thrice and in all the meetings IT for 
Change was very active. Unfortunately, while developing countries had 
strongly pushed for strengthening the IGF in the first round of meetings 
of the Working Group, an effort resisted by developed countries and the 
business community, in the second round, developing countries became 
rather restrained.

They had serious misgivings about the role of the IGF in supplanting 
rather than supporting democratic global governance systems. This rather 
justified feeling unfortunately added to the already strong fear among 
the more authoritatively inclined countries that the IGF will mostly be 
used to fan human rights issues.

The second round of meetings of the Working Group saw a surprising 
amount of consensus among government representatives from across North 
and South, and also business members, for not rocking the status quo 
with regard to the IGF. Most developing countries had strongly resisted 
the primacy of a capacity building role for the IGF at the debates 
before the Tunis Summit, most graphically described in the words of a 
developing country diplomat, "We don't want developed countries to set 
up a school for developing countries". Very interestingly, the same 
countries were now found to insist on a primary capacity-building role 
for the IGF at the Working Group meetings. They also now joined the 
developed countries to speak against public funding of the IGF, and 
against having its outcomes formally communicated to bodies dealing with 
Internet governance. No one seemed interested in strengthening the IGF; 
on one side they did not want to lose their hegemonic positions, and on 
the other, they were not sure of the new role of non-state actors in 
global governance. This shows how much developing countries have lost 
confidence and trust in the IGF over the years.

This left the few civil society members of the group in a rather 
difficult position to try and salvage at least some possibilities of 
improvements to the IGF. The Working Group meetings become a rather 
lack-lustre affair with little desire for real change among the 
overwhelming majority in the room. If the final report still has some 
useful recommendations, it largely goes back to the first round of 
meetings of the Working Group, which contributed the basic structure of 
the final report and gave some meaty language to the draft (The 'India 
proposal' by far made the largest contribution in this regard). Though 
most of it got whittled-down,what survived constitutes the most 
important part of the final report of the Working Group.

The final report focuses on 'outcomes' from the IGF, a term that had 
become contested in the post Summit years. This recommendation, if 
sincerely followed, should provide avenues of some improvements in the 
IGF. The report also asks for focus on clear policy questions, with the 
results of the discussions on these questions required to be reflected 
in the 'outcome' documents. In fact, one of the most important 
contributions of the report is its re-affirmation of the primacy of the 
policy dialogue role of the IGF over its capacity building role. While 
the mandate from the Tunis Summit is clear in this regard, in the 
subsequent years, very strong, and somewhat successful, efforts have 
been made to undermine the primacy of the policy dialogue role. The 
report also makes some useful contribution on how the Multi-stakeholder 
Advisory Group of the IGF should be constituted, especially with regard 
to making sure that (1) it is not captured by a few powerful 
stakeholders, and (2) there is an improvement in the representation of 
the hitherto under-represented groups. The report also stresses the need 
for complete transparency vis-à-vis the income and expenditure of the 
IGF. IT for Change will try to monitor closely how the recommendations 
of the Working Group are carried out.




>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>> Apologies for being late into this important discussion.
>>
>> I will comment separately on the discussions that have taken place 
>> upto now and the evolving text. However, I think we should first of 
>> all seek that MAG implements the recommendations of the WG on IGF 
>> Improvements, especially on the following counts
>>  (below are all quotes from the WG's report)
>>
>> "To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should 
>> formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as 
>> part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates of these 
>> questions, with special focus on public policy perspectives and aimed 
>> at capacity building, should be stated in the outcome documentation."
>>
>> "The outcome documentation should include messages that map out 
>> converging and diverging opinions on given questions."
>>
>>
>>
>> "S(...identifying pertinent key policy questions around which main 
>> sessions for the IGF will be structured. In order to enhance the 
>> bottom-up process and to facilitate the identification of key policy 
>> questions, the Secretariat could also issue the call for workshop 
>> proposals before the first Open Consultation."
>>
>>
>>
>> (quotes end)
>>
>> There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis  a vis the 
>> fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy 
>> questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of. 
>> For tooo long it has remained caught in matters of process and form. 
>> It is time to do what it really needed to do.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>
>>> Louis Pouzin <mailto:pouzin at well.com><pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow 
>>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Louis Pouzin <mailto:pouzin at well.com><pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> re Main sessions.
>>>>>> *Only two *90min main sessions.
>>>>>> One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
>>>>>> Interpretation only in english.
>>>>>> Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
>>>>> like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
>>>>> session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
>>>>> [1] 
>>>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79>http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, why?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes Norbert.
>>>>
>>>> Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
>>>> celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
>>>> truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
>>>> because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
>>>> that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
>>>>
>>>> One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
>>>> means. Result will tell.
>>>>
>>>> Workshops are more effective because:
>>>> - there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
>>>> one,
>>>> - speakers use spontaneous language,
>>>> - there are more interactions with the attendees,
>>>> - specific topics fit better with a small room,
>>>> - it's easier to identify who is there.
>>>>
>>>> On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
>>>> english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
>>>> could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
>>>> various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
>>>> (Chicagoan).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
>>> making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
>>> give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
>>> just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
>>> and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
>>> that is truly taken seriously.
>>>
>>> So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
>>> the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
>>> for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
>>> of them.
>>>
>>> So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
>>> request.
>>>
>>> What do the others think?
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130203/47f0d8d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Feb  3 07:45:21 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 07:45:21 -0500
Subject: [governance] WTPF Russia
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331573@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <CAPVtau=hi=PUwfrNHrakmtsUoxFPa8gA8742YKUppj1S9X4sNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331573@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxg2mi=QBCvpcnyJzgBsdcQAMXYD4Dtn4kUB8Ao7ek+Wsg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Wolfgang,

It's as regressive as it is unrealistic, just one example:

2. Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet,
including allotment,
assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering, naming, addressing
and identification
resources and to support for the operation and development of basic
Internet infrastructure


Back to a 2003-like mindset!!



On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:23 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> FYI
>
> Attached is the Russian Proposal for WTPF
>
>
> 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
>



-- 
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 rguerra at privaterra.org  Sun Feb  3 10:55:30 2013
From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 10:55:30 -0500
Subject: [governance] WTPF Russia
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxg2mi=QBCvpcnyJzgBsdcQAMXYD4Dtn4kUB8Ao7ek+Wsg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPVtau=hi=PUwfrNHrakmtsUoxFPa8gA8742YKUppj1S9X4sNg@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331573@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <CACAaNxg2mi=QBCvpcnyJzgBsdcQAMXYD4Dtn4kUB8Ao7ek+Wsg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9AAC288D-0E17-4CD2-BCAC-41C7798D0D0A@privaterra.org>

McTim,

I'd say the Russian proposal is entirely consistent with their policy. Not surprising at all. 

The question is how will other govts &  stakeholders react? Will they support them, oppose them, or negotiate a middle ground? Geo politics at play - nothing new for the UN...


Robert

On 2013-02-03, at 7:45 AM, McTim wrote:

> Thanks Wolfgang,
> 
> It's as regressive as it is unrealistic, just one example:
> 
> 2. Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet,
> including allotment,
> assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering, naming, addressing
> and identification
> resources and to support for the operation and development of basic
> Internet infrastructure
> 
> 
> Back to a 2003-like mindset!!
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:23 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>> FYI
>> 
>> Attached is the Russian Proposal for WTPF
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sun Feb  3 13:18:02 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 10:18:02 -0800
Subject: [governance] Charter amendments voting underway
In-Reply-To: <20130203091843.03919e62@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130203091843.03919e62@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <75F812CE-1A1A-456E-A141-207E08B0B1F5@acm.org>


I really appreciated the presence of 'no answer' on each question.

thanks

avri

On 3 Feb 2013, at 00:18, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
> 
> Dear all
> 
> Those who voted in the recent coordinator election (interpreted
> generously in the sense that bailing out after the self-affirmation as
> a Caucus member counts as having voted) should have received an email
> with a personal voting link.
> 
> For each of the four amendment proposals, there is the choice of voting
> "yes", "no", or "no answer".
> 
> The poll runs until 13.02.2013 00:00 server time which is approximately
> set to EST.
> 
> 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 15:33:36 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Charter amendments voting underway
Message-ID: <1359923616.94933.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>



+1

------------------------------
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 11:18 PM PKT Avri Doria wrote:

>
>I really appreciated the presence of 'no answer' on each question.
>
>thanks
>
>avri
>
>On 3 Feb 2013, at 00:18, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>> 
>> Dear all
>> 
>> Those who voted in the recent coordinator election (interpreted
>> generously in the sense that bailing out after the self-affirmation as
>> a Caucus member counts as having voted) should have received an email
>> with a personal voting link.
>> 
>> For each of the four amendment proposals, there is the choice of voting
>> "yes", "no", or "no answer".
>> 
>> The poll runs until 13.02.2013 00:00 server time which is approximately
>> set to EST.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sun Feb  3 17:14:09 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 14:14:09 -0800
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>


+1

On 2 Feb 2013, at 20:50, parminder wrote:

> There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis  a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of. For tooo long it has remained caught in matters of process and form. It is time to do what it really needed to do.


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

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

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

From abigabaw at gmail.com  Sun Feb  3 19:41:55 2013
From: abigabaw at gmail.com (Wilson Abigaba)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 03:41:55 +0300
Subject: [governance] Charter amendments voting underway
In-Reply-To: <20130203091843.03919e62@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130203091843.03919e62@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAN1xXHGRn+OPrAik=H366sG-CGuF8-S1cbyFOburemtzwEuiLw@mail.gmail.com>

Quoting the charter at http://igcaucus.org/charter under Voting
Process, "As part of the voting process the voter must personally
ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership
criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the
voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter
form in order to vote)"

I didn't see the above.

I would also have preferred my vote to be secret (as it's the norm for
most voting events) but it looks like that's not an easy.

Kind Regards,
Wilson


On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> Dear all
>
> Those who voted in the recent coordinator election (interpreted
> generously in the sense that bailing out after the self-affirmation as
> a Caucus member counts as having voted) should have received an email
> with a personal voting link.
>
> For each of the four amendment proposals, there is the choice of voting
> "yes", "no", or "no answer".
>
> The poll runs until 13.02.2013 00:00 server time which is approximately
> set to EST.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Feb  4 02:58:04 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:58:04 +0900
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <510E2FC6.8080805@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<p06240800cd33c98bc62f@192.168.1.125>
	<510E2FC6.8080805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAFabd1LsMPdkA3+pqXC6at7FVrKxVJXr3iRUBPi59QjOGUdCDg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Parminder.

Probably be good if MAG members were asked to read the document before
the meetings later this month.  Also remind MAG to consider comments
made in Baku during the taking stock/way forward session
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/114-preparatory-process/1259-igf-2012-taking-stock-and-the-way-forward-main-session>.

Including a summary of Improvements WG recommendations IGC supports in
the contribution being drafted now should also be helpful.

Adam


On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:37 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 03 February 2013 01:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> Parminder, could you send a link to IGF Improvements working group's
> report(s).
>
>
> unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf
>
>
> Has there been a discussion on the list about the WG's recommendations?
>
>
> It is an interesting question. The developments at the meeting were
> presented to the IGC throughout, as well as the final outcomes... However, I
> did not find much discussion on them, which surprised me since IGC claims
> principally to be  IGF oriented.
>
> What surprised me even further was that some of the key areas proposed for
> IGF improvements - like providing relatively clear recommendations, forming
> of issues based working groups by and in the MAG, etc,  generally to extend
> MAG beyond being a mere program committee and IGF merely a open platform for
> discussions - have subsequently been strongly taken up by the very actors
> that opposed these 'improvements' within the WG . In this regard, the
> 'looking forward' session on the last day of Baku IGF, and the
> 'controversial' MAG meeting on the same day, were key events. But a strong
> inkling of what was coming was available in the the BAku pre-event on
> enhanced cooperation, and also some posting by some IGC members in the run
> up to the Baku IGF.
>
> I am cut-pasting below excerpts from the 2012 annual report of IT for Change
> containing a very brief report on the WG on IGF improvement, which is of
> course written for a more general audience.
>
> Parminder
>
>
> Excerpts from the ITfC annual report on WG on IGF improvements.
>
>
> Improving the UN Internet Governance Forum
>
> IT for Change has been one of the five civil society members of the CSTD
> Working Group on Improvements to the IGF. Over 2010-2011, we presented our
> own extensive proposals for IGF improvements
> (http://itforchange.net/UNCSTD_WGIIGF_input_papers) and also worked closely
> with the Indian government to develop what came to be called as the 'India
> proposal' (http://itforchange.net/india_report_wgiigf). This was a very
> elaborate proposal for improving the IGF to become a path-breaking global
> institution of deliberative democracy, ensuring very broad public
> participation in global Internet policy making. Much of the discussions of
> the Working Group revolved around the 'India proposal'. In May 2011, the
> CSTD extended the life of the Working Group. During 2011-2012, the group met
> thrice and in all the meetings IT for Change was very active. Unfortunately,
> while developing countries had strongly pushed for strengthening the IGF in
> the first round of meetings of the Working Group, an effort resisted by
> developed countries and the business community, in the second round,
> developing countries became rather restrained.
>
> They had serious misgivings about the role of the IGF in supplanting rather
> than supporting democratic global governance systems. This rather justified
> feeling unfortunately added to the already strong fear among the more
> authoritatively inclined countries that the IGF will mostly be used to fan
> human rights issues.
>
> The second round of meetings of the Working Group saw a surprising amount of
> consensus among government representatives from across North and South, and
> also business members, for not rocking the status quo with regard to the
> IGF. Most developing countries had strongly resisted the primacy of a
> capacity building role for the IGF at the debates before the Tunis Summit,
> most graphically described in the words of a developing country diplomat,
> "We don't want developed countries to set up a school for developing
> countries". Very interestingly, the same countries were now found to insist
> on a primary capacity-building role for the IGF at the Working Group
> meetings. They also now joined the developed countries to speak against
> public funding of the IGF, and against having its outcomes formally
> communicated to bodies dealing with Internet governance. No one seemed
> interested in strengthening the IGF; on one side they did not want to lose
> their hegemonic positions, and on the other, they were not sure of the new
> role of non-state actors in global governance. This shows how much
> developing countries have lost confidence and trust in the IGF over the
> years.
>
> This left the few civil society members of the group in a rather difficult
> position to try and salvage at least some possibilities of improvements to
> the IGF. The Working Group meetings become a rather lack-lustre affair with
> little desire for real change among the overwhelming majority in the room.
> If the final report still has some useful recommendations, it largely goes
> back to the first round of meetings of the Working Group, which contributed
> the basic structure of the final report and gave some meaty language to the
> draft (The 'India proposal' by far made the largest contribution in this
> regard). Though most of it got whittled-down,what survived constitutes the
> most important part of the final report of the Working Group.
>
> The final report focuses on 'outcomes' from the IGF, a term that had become
> contested in the post Summit years. This recommendation, if sincerely
> followed, should provide avenues of some improvements in the IGF. The report
> also asks for focus on clear policy questions, with the results of the
> discussions on these questions required to be reflected in the 'outcome'
> documents. In fact, one of the most important contributions of the report is
> its re-affirmation of the primacy of the policy dialogue role of the IGF
> over its capacity building role. While the mandate from the Tunis Summit is
> clear in this regard, in the subsequent years, very strong, and somewhat
> successful, efforts have been made to undermine the primacy of the policy
> dialogue role. The report also makes some useful contribution on how the
> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group of the IGF should be constituted,
> especially with regard to making sure that (1) it is not captured by a few
> powerful stakeholders, and (2) there is an improvement in the representation
> of the hitherto under-represented groups. The report also stresses the need
> for complete transparency vis-à-vis the income and expenditure of the IGF.
> IT for Change will try to monitor closely how the recommendations of the
> Working Group are carried out.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> Apologies for being late into this important discussion.
>
> I will comment separately on the discussions that have taken place upto now
> and the evolving text. However, I think we should first of all seek that MAG
> implements the recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements, especially on
> the following counts
>  (below are all quotes from the WG's report)
>
> "To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should formulate
> a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as part of the
> overall discussion. The results of the debates of these questions, with
> special focus on public policy perspectives and aimed at capacity building,
> should be stated in the outcome documentation."
>
> "The outcome documentation should include messages that map out converging
> and diverging opinions on given questions."
>
>
>
> "Š...identifying pertinent key policy questions around which main sessions
> for the IGF will be structured. In order to enhance the bottom-up process
> and to facilitate the identification of key policy questions, the
> Secretariat could also issue the call for workshop proposals before the
> first Open Consultation."
>
>
>
> (quotes end)
>
> There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis  a vis the fact
> that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy questions that it
> was created to contribute towards resolution of. For tooo long it has
> remained caught in matters of process and form. It is time to do what it
> really needed to do.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Friday 01 February 2013 09:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> Louis Pouzin <mailto:pouzin at well.com><pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Norbert Bollow
> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch><nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
> Louis Pouzin <mailto:pouzin at well.com><pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>
> re Main sessions.
> *Only two *90min main sessions.
> One on the 1st day, the other on the last day.
> Interpretation only in english.
> Reallocate interpreters to most popular workshops
>
>
> Do you think that severely reducing the weight of the main sessions
> like this is preferable to the suggestion of innovation in main
> session format (as currently in the draft submission [1])?
> [1]
> <http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79>http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79
>
> If so, why?
>
>
> Yes Norbert.
>
> Main sessions are customarily preempted as show business for local
> celebrities and IGF nomenklatura. That produces repetitious hackneyed
> truisms inducing boredom and sleep. A fair number of attendees come
> because there is interpretation in several languages. Two sessions of
> that sort are enough for speakers' ego satisfaction.
>
> One more main session could be tried as innovation, whatever that
> means. Result will tell.
>
> Workshops are more effective because:
> - there is much more choice, one can move from a poor one to a good
> one,
> - speakers use spontaneous language,
> - there are more interactions with the attendees,
> - specific topics fit better with a small room,
> - it's easier to identify who is there.
>
> On the minus side, there is no interpretation, or rarely. Speakers'
> english is more or less understandable, depending on the room. This
> could be corrected by "repeaters", that is people trained to decode
> various english accents, and repeat verbatim in well spoken american
> (Chicagoan).
>
>
> Louis, thanks a lot for explaining. I think that you are definitely
> making a valid point. On the other hand, I don't think that we should
> give up on trying to fix the main sessions. If the IGF evolves into
> just a heap of workshops plus a bit of "show business" at the beginning
> and end, we'll have lost the battle of building the IGF into something
> that is truly taken seriously.
>
> So far it seems to me that significantly more of the contributors to
> the statement agree with the view that we should emphasize the need
> for call of innovation of main sessions rather than to get rid of most
> of them.
>
> So right now it seems to me appropriate not to act on this change
> request.
>
> What do the others think?
>
> 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 nb at bollow.ch  Mon Feb  4 05:02:20 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:02:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] Charter amendments voting underway
In-Reply-To: <CAN1xXHGRn+OPrAik=H366sG-CGuF8-S1cbyFOburemtzwEuiLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130203091843.03919e62@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CAN1xXHGRn+OPrAik=H366sG-CGuF8-S1cbyFOburemtzwEuiLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130204110220.30249ca2@quill.bollow.ch>

Wilson Abigaba <abigabaw at gmail.com> wrote:

> Quoting the charter at http://igcaucus.org/charter under Voting
> Process, "As part of the voting process the voter must personally
> ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership
> criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the
> voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter
> form in order to vote)"
> 
> I didn't see the above.

Since this is a charter amendments poll, everyone who got an invitation
link to participate in the poll has taken that step already as part of
the recent coordinator election.

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Feb  4 06:38:54 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:38:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re. participate in poll to amend the IGC charter
In-Reply-To: <1359879735.3811.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1359876645.11608.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<20130203090032.0ad0268c@quill.bollow.ch>
	<1359879735.3811.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20130204123854.720ddaa6@quill.bollow.ch>

Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Would you please
> >> inform me the method in which some one can choose single item from
> >> a proposed amendments.
> >> for example in case of amendment #1, there are two changes are
> >> proposed:
>
> Section wise selection was as important as the abstain option is.
> Being a member, my vote is important. Please suggest me, who to do it?
> Best Regards

Dear Imran

I think that what you're asking for here, that the coordinators
would take it upon themselves to split up a formally proposed
charter amendment proposal (that was proposed as a unit) into two
logically independent parts, is not something that the coordinators
should do. If the coordinators were to do this kind of thing, would
they also do it e.g. to the fourth proposal? [1] That one proposes
three changes, but it doesn't really make sense to treat them as
independent. If the first change was accepted but the second change was
not accepted we would have a rather absurd (but logically
non-contradictory) rule that coordinator elections should take place
half a year before term of office starts. If the first change is
accepted but the third change is not accepted we would have an example
that doesn't make sense. Please let's not make it needlessly easy for
the Caucus coordinators to mess things up. :-) 
[1] See http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments

In regard to the first proposal, the situation is different in that I
agree that that proposal actually combines logically independent
aspects. However since both aspects are regulated in the same passage
of charter text, there would have been a significant complexity cost in
addressing the two aspects in separate charter amendment proposals.
But it would have been possible. In particular, it would have been
possible for any group of at least ten voting members of the Caucus to
submit an alternative proposal that changes only one of the two
aspects. In that case Avri's proposal and the alternative proposal
would have been combined into a single question of the poll which would
have given four choices: A "yes" choice for either of the two proposals
(Avri's proposal changing both aspects and the alternative proposal
changing only one aspect), a "no to both proposals" option, and a "no
answer" option.

Greetings,
Norbert


Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Norbert, 
> You are witness of the
> conflict of opinion during the discussion about abstaining, I think
> this option has to be incorporated while preparing the survey poll.
> Section wise selection was as important as the abstain option is.
> Being a member, my vote
> is important. Please suggest me, who to do it?
> Best Regards
>  
> Imran
> 
> >________________________________
> > From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah
> ><ias_pk at yahoo.com> Cc: IGC coordinators <coordinators at igcaucus.org> 
> >Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 13:00
> >Subject: Re: [governance] Re. participate in poll to amend the IGC
> >charter
> >  
> >[IGC Coordinator hat on]
> >
> >Hello Imran,
> >those two changes are part of a single proposed amendment; at the
> >current stage there is no way to agree with only one of them.
> >Greetings,
> >Norbert
> >
> >
> >Am Sat, 2 Feb 2013 23:30:45 -0800 (PST)
> >schrieb Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:
> >
> >> Would you please
> >> inform me the method in which some one can choose single item from
> >> a proposed amendments.
> >> for example in case of amendment #1, there are two changes are
> >> proposed:
> >> Changes proposed:
> >> 
> >> 1. Indicate that the affirmation is prior to the vote and not part
> >> of the vote. 2. require that all ballot include the ability to
> >> abstain. 
> >> How I can choose to vote for any one option if I am not feeling
> >> comfortable to select the both?
> >>  
> >> Please help me to understand and to cast my vote.
> >>  
> >> Thanks
> >>  
> >> Imran Ahmed Shah
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >To be removed from the list, visit:
> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> >For all other list information and functions, see:
> >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >To edit your 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 Feb  4 10:02:34 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:02:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130204160234.77dad36a@quill.bollow.ch>

Dear all

There is now a somewhat restructured draft statement online at

http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107

Please review this.

In my view this current draft reasonably incorporates the various
concerns, suggestions and comments that have been made so far either
here on the list or at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/79

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 jcurran at istaff.org  Mon Feb  4 10:43:14 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:43:14 -0500
Subject: [governance] ICANN public consultation on "Policy vs
 Implementation"
Message-ID: <D4AA0984-4EA0-4959-8D24-620E4025656A@istaff.org>

ICANN has opened a public consultation regarding the topic of "Policy vs Implementation" -
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm>
There is a staff briefing document which includes background materials, questions for 
discussion, and some possible improvements in making these types of determinations.  

Folks interested in Internet Governance might have interest in this consultation, as it 
touches on issues such as policy development and ratification, relations with contracted
bodies, and ICANN's organizational structure.  Note - the deadline for posting initial
comments in this consultation is 21 Feb 2013.

FYI,
/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone; this email is not the result of consultative or collaborative
processes (unless one considers inter-lobal interactions within a single cranium...)


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

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Mon Feb  4 11:07:29 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 17:07:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] We need a new formulation of end-to-end analysis
In-Reply-To: <51024327.2060406@cavebear.com>
References: <51015F57.5050602@gmail.com> <51024327.2060406@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYp_OacHD9eZuiS8JUBqSS_RsohV2hrfkzXyLa7LG-cGNw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:

On 01/24/2013 08:20 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:
>
> >     We need a new formulation of end-to-end analysis
> >
> > End-to-end analysis is the major theoretization of the Internet that was
> > proposed by Jerome Saltzer, David Reed and David Clark
> > <http://www.reed.com/dpr/locus/Papers/EndtoEnd.html>
>
> Less on topic and more of a question about internet history...
>
> I had always attributed the idea of moving intelligence out of the
> packet switches and into the attached hosts came from Cyclades (from our
> friend on this list Louis Pouzin).  Is my understanding incorrect?
>
>         --karl--
>
- - -

Hi Karl, and other end-to-end debaters,

An article by *Richard Bennett *presents a fine analysis of end-to-end
principles, their origins, innovations, evolutions and distortions.

*Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the
Net Neutrality Debate
*
http://www.itif.org/files/2009-designed-for-change.pdf

an excerpt:

« The Inter­net is an adaptable system because its experimental character
provides it with a built-in learning function that enables engineers to
make network and proto­col design decisions empirically. It’s fair to say
that its design is dictated more by a commitment to contin­ual improvement
than by obedience to hard and fast rules: It was meant to be a system in
which experi­ments would have the consequence of improving the network.
This method of designing networks was pio­neered by CYCLADES, the datagram
network created by Louis Pouzin in France in the early 1970s, and was
subsequently adopted by the Internet and several other networks. The
experimental approach to network de­sign and operation is challenged by the
modern-day network neutrality framework, which relies more on a rigid
system of rules to make decisions about the place­ment of network functions
than on experience and empirical evidence. »

Enjoy, Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130204/471baa03/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb  4 11:11:00 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 21:41:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] We need a new formulation of end-to-end analysis
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYp_OacHD9eZuiS8JUBqSS_RsohV2hrfkzXyLa7LG-cGNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51015F57.5050602@gmail.com> <51024327.2060406@cavebear.com> <CA+EjHYp_OacHD9eZuiS8JUBqSS_RsohV2hrfkzXyLa7LG-cGNw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4F118C2D-36B9-4678-82B5-6D2A7287CB91@hserus.net>

:) which is fun because Richard is one of the most vocal critics of the Susan Crawford etc school of Thoth on net neutrality.  I do happen to agree with him by and large, but at least on the IP list that puts me in a slightly small minority,

--srs (iPad)

On 04-Feb-2013, at 21:37, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/24/2013 08:20 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:
>> 
>> >     We need a new formulation of end-to-end analysis
>> >
>> > End-to-end analysis is the major theoretization of the Internet that was
>> > proposed by Jerome Saltzer, David Reed and David Clark
>> > <http://www.reed.com/dpr/locus/Papers/EndtoEnd.html>
>> 
>> Less on topic and more of a question about internet history...
>> 
>> I had always attributed the idea of moving intelligence out of the
>> packet switches and into the attached hosts came from Cyclades (from our friend on this list Louis Pouzin).  Is my understanding incorrect?
>> 
>>         --karl--
> - - - 
> 
> Hi Karl, and other end-to-end debaters,
> 
> An article by Richard Bennett presents a fine analysis of end-to-end principles, their origins, innovations, evolutions and distortions.
> 
> Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate
> 
> http://www.itif.org/files/2009-designed-for-change.pdf
> 
> an excerpt:
> 
> « The Inter­net is an adaptable system because its experimental character provides it with a built-in learning function that enables engineers to make network and proto­col design decisions empirically. It’s fair to say that its design is dictated more by a commitment to contin­ual improvement than by obedience to hard and fast rules: It was meant to be a system in which experi­ments would have the consequence of improving the network. This method of designing networks was pio­neered by CYCLADES, the datagram network created by Louis Pouzin in France in the early 1970s, and was subsequently adopted by the Internet and several other networks. The experimental approach to network de­sign and operation is challenged by the modern-day network neutrality framework, which relies more on a rigid system of rules to make decisions about the place­ment of network functions than on experience and empirical evidence. »
> 
> Enjoy, Louis
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130204/40b66e86/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Feb  4 11:52:26 2013
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 17:52:26 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] We need a new formulation of end-to-end analysis
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYp_OacHD9eZuiS8JUBqSS_RsohV2hrfkzXyLa7LG-cGNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51015F57.5050602@gmail.com> <51024327.2060406@cavebear.com>
 <CA+EjHYp_OacHD9eZuiS8JUBqSS_RsohV2hrfkzXyLa7LG-cGNw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1397232450.38093.1359996746724.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m33>

Thanks to Luoisn Riaz and Karl for re-focusing the debate on networking basics on this list. I fully support this approach and o hope it will not only raise and deal with interesting questions but also give Internet governance the intelligent tools it is missing. Jean-Louis Fullsack NB : CYCLADES reminds me some (far) souvenirs, dear Louis !




> Message du 04/02/13 17:08
> De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Karl Auerbach" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] We need a new formulation of end-to-end analysis
> 
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Karl Auerbach  wrote:
> 
> On 01/24/2013 08:20 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:
> 
> > We need a new formulation of end-to-end analysis
> >
> > End-to-end analysis is the major theoretization of the Internet that was
> > proposed by Jerome Saltzer, David Reed and David Clark
>> 
> 
> Less on topic and more of a question about internet history...
> 
> I had always attributed the idea of moving intelligence out of the
> packet switches and into the attached hosts came from Cyclades (from our friend on this list Louis Pouzin). Is my understanding incorrect?
> 
> --karl--
> - - - 
>
> Hi Karl, and other end-to-end debaters,
> 
> An article by Richard Bennett presents a fine analysis of end-to-end principles, their origins, innovations, evolutions and distortions.
> 
> Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate
> 
> http://www.itif.org/files/2009-designed-for-change.pdf
> 
> an excerpt:
> 
> « The Inter­net is an adaptable system because its experimental character provides it with a built-in learning function that enables engineers to make network and proto­col design decisions empirically. It’s fair to say that its design is dictated more by a commitment to contin­ual improvement than by obedience to hard and fast rules: It was meant to be a system in which experi­ments would have the consequence of improving the network. This method of designing networks was pio­neered by CYCLADES, the datagram network created by Louis Pouzin in France in the early 1970s, and was subsequently adopted by the Internet and several other networks. The experimental approach to network de­sign and operation is challenged by the modern-day network neutrality framework, which relies more on a rigid system of rules to make decisions about the place­ment of network functions than on experience and empirical evidence. »
> 
> Enjoy, Louis
> 
>


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130204/b6b80b36/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Mon Feb  4 12:03:28 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:03:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
In-Reply-To: <0464D524-5EB9-4634-864E-49AF7F33F640@acm.org>
References: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0464D524-5EB9-4634-864E-49AF7F33F640@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYovxwW8640p3V6rZ2pkP-Umuu4H2BhMfAvSNKR+QR7j7g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Having now listened to the conversation, I find you comments curious.


I did not listen to the audio. The conference summary in Michael's post was
explicit enough.

>

In what way did it keep paranoia alive?  Whose paranoia? Of what?
>

See Milton's article, with which I agree.

ITU Phobia: Why WCIT was derailed
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/

>
> And I must say, being somewhat conversant with the Joe McCarthy and the
> Times, that I did not understand this point either, can you explain the
> ways in which this was McCarthyesque.
>
> Well known witch hunt on "communists" in the 50's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Louis

>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
> - - -
>
> On 1 Feb 2013, at 05:36, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>
> > Great. Keep the paranoia on the front page.
> > Sounds like Jo McCarthy's times.
> > Louis
> > - - -
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 7:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Some of you may have missed this invitation...
> >
> > M
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > http://www.netcaucus.org/conference/2013/wcit.shtml
> >
> > No Rest for the WCIT*: Charting An Affirmative Plan to Safeguarding
> Internet
> > Freedom!
> > Tuesday, January 22 2013
> >
> > AUDIO : http://www.netcaucus.org/audio/2013/20130122sotn-wcit.mp3
> >
> > Panelists:
> > - Fiona Alexander, Associate Administrator, Office of International
> Affairs,
> > National Telecommunications & Information Administration
> > (NTIA)
> > - Colin Crowell, Head of Global Public Policy, Twitter
> > - Jamie Hedlund, Vice President, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
> and
> > Numbers (ICANN)
> > - Andrew McLaughlin, Chairman of the Board, Access
> > - Thomas O'Toole, Managing Editor, Electronic Commerce & Law Report,
> > Bloomberg BNA - Moderator
> >
> > It remains to be seen whether Internet stakeholders have prevented the UN
> > from seizing control of the Internet at last month's ITU World
> Conference on
> > International Telecommunications (WCIT). Regardless, for weary
> negotiators
> > it appears that the battle to keep the Internet free will be protracted.
> > There will ne no rest in the foreseeable future.
> >
> > On December 13, 2012 FCC Commissioner McDowell direly predicted that
> while
> > many of the "anti-freedom" WCIT proposals were turned back "the worst is
> yet
> > to come." More than ever Congress must become a more involved
> stakeholder.
> > Any substantive changes to the ITU treaty governing the Internet
> hopefully
> > would need to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. But threats to Internet
> > freedom could come from a variety of vectors. A panel of experts will
> > outline the long-term prospects for the Internet freedom fight and how
> > Congress can play a more consistent and constructive role.
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130204/3534560e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Mon Feb  4 13:07:26 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:07:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] US: FCC proposes large publkic WiFi networks; tech,
 telecom giants take sides
In-Reply-To: <510FEC4D.6070601@bluewin.ch>
References: <510FEC4D.6070601@bluewin.ch>
Message-ID: <510FF8DE.6040901@gmail.com>



  Tech, telecom giants take sides as FCC proposes large public WiFi networks


      By Cecilia Kang
      <http://www.washingtonpost.com/cecilia-kang/2011/02/28/ABFs9eL_page.html>,
      Monday, February 4, 1:21 AM

The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the 
nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to 
make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month.

The proposal from the Federal Communications Commission has rattled the 
$178 billion wireless industry, which has launched a fierce lobbying 
effort to persuade policymakers to reconsider the idea, analysts say. 
That has been countered by an equally intense campaign from Google 
<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/marketnews/stockdetail/?symbol=GOOG>, 
Microsoft 
<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/marketnews/stockdetail/?symbol=MSFT> and 
other tech giants who say a free-for-all WiFi service would spark an 
explosion of innovations and devices that would benefit most Americans, 
especially the poor.

The airwaves that FCC officials want to hand over to the public would be 
much more powerful than existing WiFi networks that have become common 
in households. They could penetrate thick concrete walls and travel over 
hills and around trees. If all goes as planned, free access to the Web 
would be available in just about every metropolitan area and in many 
rural areas.

The new WiFi networks would also have much farther reach, allowing for a 
driverless car to communicate with another vehicle a mile away or a 
patient's heart monitor to connect to a hospital on the other side of town.

If approved by the FCC 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/fcc-may-auction-tv-airwaves-to-wireless-carriers/2012/09/06/011c8d9a-f86b-11e1-a073-78d05495927c_story.html>, 
the free networks would still take several years to set up. And, with no 
one actively managing them, con­nections could easily become jammed in 
major cities. But public WiFi could allow many consumers to make free 
calls from their mobile phones via the Internet. The frugal-minded could 
even use the service in their homes, allowing them to cut off expensive 
Internet bills.

"For a casual user of the Web, perhaps this could replace carrier 
service," said Jeffrey Silva, an analyst at the Medley Global Advisors 
research firm. "Because it is more plentiful and there is no price tag, 
it could have a real appeal to some people."

The major wireless carriers own much more spectrum than what is being 
proposed for public WiFi, making their networks more robust, experts say.

Designed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/julius-genachowski/gIQAHAht9O_topic.html>, 
the plan would be a global first. When the U.S. government made a 
limited amount of unlicensed airwaves available in 1985, an unexpected 
explosion in innovation followed. Baby monitors, garage door openers and 
wireless stage microphones were created. Millions of homes now run their 
own wireless networks, connecting tablets, game consoles, kitchen 
appli­ances and security systems to the Internet.

"Freeing up unlicensed spectrum is a vibrantly free-market approach that 
offers low barriers to entry to innovators developing the technologies 
of the future and benefits consumers," Genachow­ski said in a an 
e-mailed statement.

Some companies and cities are already moving in this direction. Google 
is providing free WiFi to the public in the Chelsea neighborhood of 
Manhattan and parts of Silicon Valley.

Cities support the idea because the networks would lower costs for 
schools and businesses or help vacationers easily find tourist spots. 
Consumer advocates note the benefits to the poor, who often cannot 
afford high cellphone and Internet bills.

The proposal would require local television stations and other 
broadcasters to sell a chunk of airwaves to the government that would be 
used for the public WiFi networks. It is not clear whether these 
companies would be willing to do so.

The FCC's plan is part of a broader strategy to repurpose entire swaths 
of the nation's airwaves to accomplish a number of goals, including 
bolstering cellular networks and creating a dedicated channel for 
emergency responders.

Some Republican lawmakers have criticized Genachowski for his idea of 
creating free WiFi networks, noting that an auction of the airwaves 
would raise billions for the U.S. Treasury.

That sentiment echoes arguments made by companies such as AT&T 
<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/marketnews/stockdetail/?symbol=T>, 
T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless 
<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/marketnews/stockdetail/?symbol=VZ>, Intel 
<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/marketnews/stockdetail/?symbol=INTC> and 
Qualcomm 
<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/marketnews/stockdetail/?symbol=QCOM>, in 
a letter to the FCC staff late last month, that the government should 
focus its attention on selling the airwaves to businesses.

Some of these companies also cautioned that a free WiFi service could 
interfere with existing cellular networks and television broadcasts.

Intel, whose chips are used in many of the devices that operate on 
cellular networks, fears that the new WiFi service would crowd the 
airwaves. The company said it would rather the FCC use the airwaves from 
television stations to bolster high-speed cellular networks, known as 4G.

"We think that that spectrum would be most useful to the larger society 
and to broadband deployment if it were licensed," said Peter Pitsch, the 
executive director of communications for Intel. "As unlicensed, there 
would be a disincentive to invest in expensive networking equipment and 
provide users with optimal quality of service."

Cisco 
<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/market-news/stockdetail?symbol=CSCO:US> 
and other telecommunications equipment firms told the FCC that it needs 
to test the airwaves more for potential interference.

"Cisco strongly urges the commission to firmly retreat from the notion 
that it can predict, or should predict . . . how the unlicensed guard 
bands might be used," the networking giant wrote.

Supporters of the free-WiFi plan say telecom equipment firms have long 
enjoyed lucrative relationships with cellular carriers and may not want 
to disrupt that model.

An FCC official added that there is little proof so far that the 
spectrum that could be used for public WiFi systems would knock out 
broadcast and 4G wireless signals.

"We want our policy to be more end-user-centric and not carrier-centric. 
That's where there is a difference in opinion" with carriers and their 
partners, said a senior FCC official who spoke on the condition of 
anonymity because the proposal is still being considered by the 
five-member panel.

The lobbying from the cellular industry motivated longtime rivals Google 
and Microsoft to join forces to support the FCC's proposal. Both 
companies would benefit from a boom in new devices that could access the 
free WiFi networks.

These companies want corporations to multiply the number of computers, 
robots, devices and other machines that are able to connect to the 
Internet, analysts said. They want cars that drive themselves to have 
more robust Internet access.

More public WiFi, they say, will spur the use of "millions of de­vices 
that will compose the coming Internet of things," the firms wrote in 
their comment to the FCC last week.

"What this does for the first time is bring the prospect of cheap 
broadband, but like any proposal it has to get through a political 
process first," said Harold Feld, a vice president at the public 
interest group Public Knowledge.

**

More technology stories: Google Fiber provides faster Internet and, 
cities hope, business growth 3-D printers could bring manufacturing to 
your home office Does Apple have an innovation problem?

Sign up today to receive #thecircuit, a daily roundup of the latest tech 
policy news from Washington and how it is shaping business, 
entertainment and science.
© The Washington Post Company




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130204/8d78a0d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Feb  4 13:28:44 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:28:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
Message-ID: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>

[IGC Coordinator hat on]

Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself)
will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the
opening session and is

* interested in being considered for representing civil society in the
  opening session or other such speaking slots that might become
  available (as a way to provide diversity in a practical way and to 
  acknowledge this large constituency symbolically, ideally we should
  have two civil society representatives in each such session, but I
  don't know whether the organizers will agree with that principle), and

* willing to consult as broadly as reasonably possible among civil
  society on points to make (such consultation needs to be broader than
  just the IGC, as WSIS+10 is topically much broader than Internet
  Governance - perhaps there is a reasonable way to quickly form an
  informal "Civil Society Caucus for the Information Society"), and

* willing and able to make points that are clear and make an impact
  (empty container speeches and repetitions of what everyone else has
  been saying are neither interesting nor useful for moving things
  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  Mon Feb  4 15:04:00 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 01:34:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYovxwW8640p3V6rZ2pkP-Umuu4H2BhMfAvSNKR+QR7j7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com> <0464D524-5EB9-4634-864E-49AF7F33F640@acm.org> <CA+EjHYovxwW8640p3V6rZ2pkP-Umuu4H2BhMfAvSNKR+QR7j7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9D5DD157-961B-4E11-9000-917E67EBDF82@hserus.net>

On 04-Feb-2013, at 22:33, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:

>> And I must say, being somewhat conversant with the Joe McCarthy and the Times, that I did not understand this point either, can you explain the ways in which this was McCarthyesque.
>> 
> Well known witch hunt on "communists" in the 50's.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Which Avri says she is aware of, as am I. Now, how does that compare to the wcit panel? Why?

srs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130205/396add4a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at ccianet.org  Mon Feb  4 16:14:40 2013
From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 22:14:40 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <010701cdfcbd$8a697d00$9f3c7700$@gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130127120551.1db0b299@quill.bollow.ch> <CAFabd1K3LNvcTcyouYSeuxmp_=+fKs=_CSoaisTQThX53X5UGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51051017.80103@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1JYEX2frbvWmEP9o-BRRqm1wKEPGi07ZjnVUHGy3U3q5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <BD7D7AE3-FF9C-421A-AA2D-418E477EF468@privaterra.org> <CAFabd1+=0MSzCp1tFEBBD=0yXoPHjTOy+NPg5vP_vAj9YV4WPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <010701cdfcbd$8a697d00$9f3c7700$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4454024971387340689@unknownmsgid>

Given that WSIS+10 and the MDG review both take place in 2015, shouldn't
there be more interconnection between the two?

-- 
Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
Geneva Representative
Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA)
Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430

*Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here:
http://meetme.so/nashton*

Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling.

On 27 Jan 2013, at 19:39, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

In addition to a focus on Internet Rights and Principles (R&P) for IGF-Bali,
there should also I believe, be a focus on WSIS +10 (upcoming in 2015) and
rather than de-emphasizing Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) it
should be re-oriented and revivified (if for no other reason than a natural
association with the LDC location of IGF-Bali) with an emphasis on the WSIS
declaration and how it might be updated in light of rapidly changing
circumstances.

The admittedly stale IG4D plenary sessions could be replaced by bringing to
the fore some of the emerging experiences (and new actors) in IG4D (in
mobiles and broadband for example) and then reflecting on the IG
issues/opportunities/gaps that are emerging.

And of course, there is a link between the R&P issue and WSIS +10 at least
through the WSIS Declaration's concern for an "inclusive Information
Society" (one of the reasons why it is so astonishing and disappointing that
the ISOC, IETF, IAB statement on standards recently noted on this list
omitted any mention or concern for "inclusion" as one of the principles on
which standards should be assessed).

M


-----Original Message-----
From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com <apeake at gmail.com>] On
Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:27 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Robert Guerra
Subject: Re: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
wrote:

Quick thoughts:


- Call for proposals: Should be done in an open and transparent fashion. I

am of the opinion that the call should be done after the open
consultation/MAG meeting in Feb. That's been how it has been done in the
past, and works well.



Think you're wrong.  The first meeting typically proposes themes for the
year.  IGF website now says:

"Call for Contributions
Stakeholders are invited to submit written contributions taking stock of the
Baku 2012 IGF meeting and looking forward - suggestions on themes and
format, for the IGF 2013 meeting. Contributions should be emailed to
igf at unog.ch before 14 February 2013."

Nothing new about this.  The MAG should respond to contributions from
stakeholders.  The first program paper will come soon after the Feb/March
meeting.  It will layout themes for the year.

For the main themes, my suggestion is all five should remain as guides for
workshops, but security openness privacy, access, Internet governance for
development were poor in Baku and should be dropped as main sessions.
Taking stock and emerging issues should merge as a single session so that a
review of the week tells us which issues have 'emerged' as important and
provide pointers for themes for the next year (it makes little sense to have
emerging issues as anything other than a response to what we've learned over
the previous 3 days).  Such a session might also help inform
recommendations/suggestions from the IGF.

Adam



To not do so, would give the appearance that the MAG has already decided

on issues/topics and is trying to impose them. That, is not acceptable.


- We seem to be still stuck on the same nomenclature for overall

themes that were developed years ago. As I proposed at last year's IGF

MAG consultations, we might want to see if the frame of "Stewardship"

that is  used in international relations discussions might be helpful


- In the proposed schedule below I don't see where issues such as Cyber

Security, Openness, Surveillance, Rights & privacy would feed into. Yes,
they have been part of IGF's in the past, but they are still key issues of
concern for all stakeholders.


- If we want experiment with different formats for discussion and dialogue

at the IGF, I would highly suggest we borrow approaches taken at other
highly successful meetings.


Let's borrow from the success of a variety of informal/ad-hoc/Discussion

Presentation formats (such as TED, "Davos Style" , unconfererence,
lightning talks, BOF's)  are used successfully at other conferences such as
the IETF, Davos, Tech at State and TEDx.


More informal styles of engagement might prove to be a bit challenging to

some stakeholder groups - such as governments - who aren't accustomed to
them. Success will require an experienced  moderator/facilitator.



Refs:



Unconference Format

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference


TEDx

http://www.ted.com/tedx


NTEN - Nonprofit Tech Conference

http://www.nten.org/ntc


Robert


--

R. Guerra

Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081

Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom

Email: rguerra at privaterra.org


On 2013-01-27, at 6:59 AM, Adam Peake wrote:


I don't agree with Internet principles as the overall theme, but do

agree it's a topic that needs significant focus.  I think it's clear

after 7 IGFs that a session of 2 or 3 hours and a few scattered

workshops doesn't begin to scratch the surface of an issue.  So how

could we use a day?  Would more depth of discussion be more likely to

lead to some form of outcome?


Just a thought:

Structured discussion on the morning (might be a panel or a round

table in a plenary setting).

Free, small group discussion middle of the day (working in small

ad-hoc groups to address issues and or questions identified during

the

morning)

Back to "plenary" for shared discussion?  (use moderators to manage

the flow:  some are getting very good at this role. For example, I

think Bill Drake and Jeanette Hofmann have been excellent. Better

than the "professionals".)


But just a thought, how else might a full day be used to develop a

useful dialogue about one topic?


Schedule might look like:


Day 1.  AM: Opening ceremony.

Day 1.  PM: Critical Internet Resources (3 hours) Day 2.  Enhanced

Cooperation (2 hours sessions, work over "lunch") Day 3.  Internet

Principles (2 hours sessions, work over "lunch") Day 4.  AM: Taking

Stock and Emerging Issues (3 hours) Day 4.  PM:  Outcomes (1 hour).

Closing Ceremony


My opinion, 3 hours is a long time and takes a good subject or it

drags.  Only CIR from Baku worked the 3 hours well.  (IMHO etc etc)


Adam




On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:31 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

wrote:


I may also remind that I had proposed that IGC supports the Internet

Rights and Principles (IRP) Group which is likely to propose that


(1) Internet principles in some form be the overall theme of the

next IGF - Maybe something more descriptive as - 'public interest

principles for the Internet' or 'Shaping global principles for the

Internet'


(2) A round table on Internet Principles be held at the next IGF.


I am developing a first draft for the IRP Group, if IGC so wants I

can share it with IGC as well.


parminder



On Sunday 27 January 2013 04:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote:


Hi Norbert,


No, sorry, no time to work on a draft.  But look forward to

discussion and hopefully some consensus.


Adam






On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:


[with IGC Coordinator hat on]


Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:


Resending email sent to the list on Jan 10.  Deadline for

contributions is Feb 14.


Just over two weeks to agree any contribution.


Thanks for reminding us! This is urgent and imporant.


Adam, are you willing and able to take the time to quickly produce a

first draft?


Greetings,

Norbert



A few comments for the February/March consultation.


Public archive of MAG mailing list needed, not been updated for a

year.


Workshops:  too many.  Cut to between 80 and 100.  Make this target

number known when the call for applications is published, might be

the first time quite a large number of proposals are rejected (might

think about implications of this for the IGF), people should expect

to be disappointed.


Minimum of 50% of MAG members must complete assessment of all

workshops.


Clarify rules for other sessions (open forums, dynamic coalition,

etc.)


No reason an initial call to prepare proposals can't be made before

the Feb meeting (more time better and the meetings a little later

than usual).  A reminder to MAG members to ready their stakeholders.


For workshops, keep the current themes (access, SOP

[security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance for

development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging issues).

Have the MAG better define Internet Governance, how it must be

considered in workshop proposals (there are other spaces in WSIS

follow-up for non-IG issues).  Use an evaluation form for workshops

(at the moment don't even know if a room was empty or overflowing,

simple count a good idea.)  However, indications are that while

there were too many workshops in Baku many were strong in content,

well received.  MAG should not cut what looks like a success to

favor the floundering main sessions.


Merging not the always the solution, it's too easy an answer for MAG

in their evaluation to say merge simply because proposals have

similar words in the title.  If merging proposed then the new

workshop needs support or tendency to end up with 2 workshops in the

same space (merge in name only).


Overall theme for 2013: "enhanced cooperation -- meaningful

participation of developing countries in Internet governance".


Main sessions. Mix up the formats, 3 hours generally too long, some

poorly attended in Baku and many grumbled complaints about poor

content, poor preparation, repeating issues from previous years, etc.

Some main sessions need better preparation (and some were good -

transcripts illustrate the differences, MAG needs to be aware they

have a role to complete, not last minute for a meeting of the IGF's

importance.)  Invite speakers early.  Use (look for) funds to

support speakers.


Taking stock and emerging issues:  mix the two sessions, then

justifies 3 hours.  Probably best held on the final morning (i.e.

emerging issues become issues the IGF thinks emerging as important

for the coming year(s)).


Final afternoon:  session on outcomes (1 hour), followed by closing.


Critical Internet Resources (strong session in Baku, justifies 3

hours).  Keep as before.


New theme: Enhanced Cooperation. Sessions in mixed formats over 1

day, e.g. Morning expert panel session 2 hours. Follow by a long

break where people encouraged to join self-organizing small groups

to discuss a few set questions and ideas from the morning panel.

Afternoon, 2 hour moderated session with audience only, no

panel/experts etc.  Bring back comments from the small groups.


New theme: Internet principles.  One day, perhaps same format as

suggested for enhanced cooperation.  Try something different.


Development aspect of IG always overlooked and too often "governance"

lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific

public comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the

May meeting to decide on topics and format.


Time to drop access and SOP as main sessions, but keep as workshops

and perhaps round-tables.


Adam




____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

   governance at lists.igcaucus.org

To be removed from the list, visit:

   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing


For all other list information and functions, see:

   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

   http://www.igcaucus.org/


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



____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

   governance at lists.igcaucus.org

To be removed from the list, visit:

   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing


For all other list information and functions, see:

   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

   http://www.igcaucus.org/


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




____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

    governance at lists.igcaucus.org

To be removed from the list, visit:

    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing


For all other list information and functions, see:

    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

    http://www.igcaucus.org/


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





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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130204/99901f35/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at ccianet.org  Mon Feb  4 16:24:32 2013
From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 22:24:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>

A big +1 too.

Candidly, I was struck in Baku by how much of the content of the
sessions was rehashing of sessions I saw in Athens, and Rio, including
the same voices saying the same things.

If we want the IGF to add real value, we need to move beyond where we
are. That doesn't mean taking decisions or inventing principles IMHO,
however:

* Multistakeholderism and bottom up processes are not just used in
Internet policy. It is high time to look at the other areas of policy
that it is used for and how and why it works there.
* The MDG review is the same year as WSIS+10. If the next 10 years of
WSIS is just more discussion of governance processes given how many
billions of humans aren't connected to the Internet at all yet, then
we have all failed and we should think bigger.
* The economy of the Information Age is transforming everything.
Privacy, security, commerce, productivity, income gaps... Isn't that
the sort of thing that really matters in real people's lives? Wouldn't
everyone be better off if there were more linkages between all the
different MS-based Internet policy shops? Why not spend some time at
the IGF helping people understand how they can participate - and
bringing some more of these processes into closer engagement?

-- 
Regards,

Nick

Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling.

On 3 Feb 2013, at 23:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> +1
>
> On 2 Feb 2013, at 20:50, parminder wrote:
>
>> There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis  a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of. For tooo long it has remained caught in matters of process and form. It is time to do what it really needed to do.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 pouzin at well.com  Mon Feb  4 17:07:05 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 23:07:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
In-Reply-To: <9D5DD157-961B-4E11-9000-917E67EBDF82@hserus.net>
References: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0464D524-5EB9-4634-864E-49AF7F33F640@acm.org> <CA+EjHYovxwW8640p3V6rZ2pkP-Umuu4H2BhMfAvSNKR+QR7j7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <9D5DD157-961B-4E11-9000-917E67EBDF82@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYrC-Sc0GmKwtOh_Y9EDsFT020nsapWaE2FKaAH+1itSKg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

And I must say, being somewhat conversant with the Joe McCarthy and the
Times, that I did not understand this point either, can you explain the
ways in which this was McCarthyesque.

On Mon 04-Feb-2013, at 22:33, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:

> Well known witch hunt on "communists" in the 50's.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
wrote:

Which Avri says she is aware of, as am I. Now, how does that compare to the
wcit panel? Why?

On Mon 04-Feb-2013, at 23:06, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:

Both are instances of paranoid politics.
Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130204/3eea94be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Mon Feb  4 17:52:40 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 14:52:40 -0800
Subject: [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYrC-Sc0GmKwtOh_Y9EDsFT020nsapWaE2FKaAH+1itSKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com> <0464D524-5EB9-4634-864E-49AF7F33F640@acm.org> <CA+EjHYovxwW8640p3V6rZ2pkP-Umuu4H2BhMfAvSNKR+QR7j7g@mail.gmail.com> <9D5DD157-961B-4E11-9000-917E67EBDF82@hserus.net> <CA+EjHYrC-Sc0GmKwtOh_Y9EDsFT020nsapWaE2FKaAH+1itSKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <96B3CB54-5263-47A4-AE4D-43673EEE43A0@acm.org>


On 4 Feb 2013, at 14:07, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:

> Both are instances of paranoid politics.


oh.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  4 19:58:50 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:58:50 -0500
Subject: [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYrC-Sc0GmKwtOh_Y9EDsFT020nsapWaE2FKaAH+1itSKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0464D524-5EB9-4634-864E-49AF7F33F640@acm.org> <CA+EjHYovxwW8640p3V6rZ2pkP-Umuu4H2BhMfAvSNKR+QR7j7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <9D5DD157-961B-4E11-9000-917E67EBDF82@hserus.net> <CA+EjHYrC-Sc0GmKwtOh_Y9EDsFT020nsapWaE2FKaAH+1itSKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiAcJYBttffw6MGhQ3N5JiTm7Q3i-fSgOBQhZhPsQxtFw@mail.gmail.com>

> On Mon 04-Feb-2013, at 23:06, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>
> Both are instances of paranoid politics.


http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121209_it_is_not_paranoia_if_they_are_really_after_you/


-- 
Cheers,

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

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb  4 21:50:23 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:20:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] AUDIO: State of the Net 2013 WCIT Panel
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiAcJYBttffw6MGhQ3N5JiTm7Q3i-fSgOBQhZhPsQxtFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <010f01cdfcbf$de583c10$9b08b430$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYp9KhznG1EFjDaYZzQzH=O59QU9jNsH_tnU4+8aiq5wGQ@mail.gmail.com> <0464D524-5EB9-4634-864E-49AF7F33F640@acm.org> <CA+EjHYovxwW8640p3V6rZ2pkP-Umuu4H2BhMfAvSNKR+QR7j7g@mail.gmail.com> <9D5DD157-961B-4E11-9000-917E67EBDF82@hserus.net> <CA+EjHYrC-Sc0GmKwtOh_Y9EDsFT020nsapWaE2FKaAH+1itSKg@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxiAcJYBttffw6MGhQ3N5JiTm7Q3i-fSgOBQhZhPsQxtFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5CF75376-84BD-4CF6-BBAA-ACCA4166AFAA@hserus.net>

That, and remember, mc carthy's politics were a witch hunt which tried and effectively ended the careers of several talented Hollywood figures. Comparing them to this current debate, acrimonious though it is, is reprehensible.

--srs (iPad)

On 05-Feb-2013, at 6:28, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Mon 04-Feb-2013, at 23:06, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Both are instances of paranoid politics.
> 
> 
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121209_it_is_not_paranoia_if_they_are_really_after_you/
> 

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

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

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

From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Mon Feb  4 21:53:12 2013
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:53:12 -0500
Subject: [governance] FOCUS - 'Basic Gripes'
Message-ID: <sympa.1360029793.13173.96@lists.igcaucus.org>

RE-FOCUS

First: My intention is not to 'demonize' ICANN, in an effort to "Re-Focus"
I believe that a new frame-alignment in several areas is over due.

However we still have not corrected problems associated to the 'Name-Drop'
system, and improved 'Policing' of Register's practices, and increased
'Enforcement' of policy...

Now It seems that J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin finally got his "Semantic Web" wish.
(from back in the IcannAtLarge.Com days).
A slew of gTDLs are on the horizon, ... SO perhaps this Group can use this
opportunity to address the fore mentioned areas, on the coat-tails of the
present 'Modalities' (as Bernard would say).

Here are some current F.Y.I.s on the Icann-Front;

http://www.thedomains.com/2013/01/09/ntag-comments-on-rpms-strawman-proposal/

http://blog.icann.org/2012/03/thought-paper-on-domain-seizures-and-takedowns/

---
And now a comment:
IMHO The Younger-Generation is out-to-lunch (18-to-20 Something),
I do not believe that it’s their fault, If anything I blame "High Fiancé
Bankers" for hypnotizing this Generation into believing that Flipping (Houses,
Domains, Intellectual Property/IPO's ... etc.) leads too healthy financial
'tangible investment' in their own future. The Bankers are a machine out to
streamline maximum-interest-payments too their coffers, at the cost of
Generations.

We the Fifty-N-Older have to pull this back to reality, the Younger People do
not comprehend a "Social-Movement". They think Facebook, linked-in, pintrest,
yelp, twitter... is a social-movement....
I'll stop here.

Let’s get back to some 'Basic Gripes', something the Kids can understand.

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb  4 22:05:12 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:35:12 +0530
Subject: [governance] FOCUS - 'Basic Gripes'
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1360029793.13173.96@lists.igcaucus.org>
References: <sympa.1360029793.13173.96@lists.igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <13ca850610e.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

I am sorry but somewhere midway between 50+ and 20 something, in my mid 
thirties, that makes very little sense.

Most of the abuse from rogue registrars has actually moved offshore and 
in tiny pockets compared to what it was earlier. And domain tasting 
using drop catching is a thing of the past since icann changed the 
costing model to eliminate incentives for that practice a while back. 
That 'semantic web' is as far from reality today as it was during the 
at large days.

And high fiancé bankers? :)

--srs (htc one x)



On 5 February 2013 8:23:12 AM "Yehuda Katz" <yehudakatz at mailinator.com> wrote:
> RE-FOCUS
>
> First: My intention is not to 'demonize' ICANN, in an effort to "Re-Focus"
> I believe that a new frame-alignment in several areas is over due.
>
> However we still have not corrected problems associated to the 'Name-Drop'
> system, and improved 'Policing' of Register's practices, and increased
> 'Enforcement' of policy...
>
> Now It seems that J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin finally got his "Semantic Web" wish.
> (from back in the IcannAtLarge.Com days).
> A slew of gTDLs are on the horizon, ... SO perhaps this Group can use this
> opportunity to address the fore mentioned areas, on the coat-tails of the
> present 'Modalities' (as Bernard would say).
>
> Here are some current F.Y.I.s on the Icann-Front;
>
> http://www.thedomains.com/2013/01/09/ntag-comments-on-rpms-strawman-proposal/
>
> http://blog.icann.org/2012/03/thought-paper-on-domain-seizures-and-takedowns/
>
> ---
> And now a comment:
> IMHO The Younger-Generation is out-to-lunch (18-to-20 Something),
> I do not believe that it’s their fault, If anything I blame "High Fiancé
> Bankers" for hypnotizing this Generation into believing that Flipping (Houses,
> Domains, Intellectual Property/IPO's ... etc.) leads too healthy financial
> 'tangible investment' in their own future. The Bankers are a machine out to
> streamline maximum-interest-payments too their coffers, at the cost of
> Generations.
>
> We the Fifty-N-Older have to pull this back to reality, the Younger People do
> not comprehend a "Social-Movement". They think Facebook, linked-in, pintrest,
> yelp, twitter... is a social-movement....
> I'll stop here.
>
> Let’s get back to some 'Basic Gripes', something the Kids can understand.
>



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

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Tue Feb  5 03:55:01 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:55:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <5110C8E5.2060808@apc.org>

Dear all

>From APC the following will be present: Karen Banks, Valeria Betancourt,
Chat Garcia Ramillo.

I think the input from CS should focus on the CS statement we drafted
and submitted in December 2003: "Shaping information societies for human
needs". This was a powerful document.. and as research APC is doing at
the moment suggests.. many of the proposals in it have been overlookedin
the post-WSIS follow-up process.

As for possible speakersI would propose people who were involved
activity in CS participation in WSIS.

Many names come to mind, and I know Wolfgang will be there, and of
course Karen Banks who played a key role. Also Avri Doria.

But I wonder if Renate Bloem would be in Paris. Renate?

Renate sweat blood and tears to ensure civil society participation in
the WSISand I thinkhaving her speak at the opening of WSIS+10 would be
very appropriate.

Anriette


 
On 04/02/2013 20:28, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself)
> will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the
> opening session and is
>
> * interested in being considered for representing civil society in the
>   opening session or other such speaking slots that might become
>   available (as a way to provide diversity in a practical way and to 
>   acknowledge this large constituency symbolically, ideally we should
>   have two civil society representatives in each such session, but I
>   don't know whether the organizers will agree with that principle), and
>
> * willing to consult as broadly as reasonably possible among civil
>   society on points to make (such consultation needs to be broader than
>   just the IGC, as WSIS+10 is topically much broader than Internet
>   Governance - perhaps there is a reasonable way to quickly form an
>   informal "Civil Society Caucus for the Information Society"), and
>
> * willing and able to make points that are clear and make an impact
>   (empty container speeches and repetitions of what everyone else has
>   been saying are neither interesting nor useful for moving things
>   forward)
>
> ?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130205/ac1650b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Tue Feb  5 03:55:35 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 10:55:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <5110C907.8040707@apc.org>

Dear Norbert and all

>From APC the following will be present: Karen Banks, Valeria Betancourt,
Chat Garcia Ramilloand myself.

I think the input from CS should focus on the CS statement we drafted
and submitted in December 2003: "Shaping information societies for human
needs". This was a powerful document.. and as research APC is doing at
the moment suggests.. many of the proposals in it have been overlookedin
the post-WSIS follow-up process.

As for possible speakersI would propose people who were involved
activity in CS participation in WSIS.

Many names come to mind, and I know Wolfgang will be there, and of
course Karen Banks who played a key role. Also Avri Doria.

But I wonder if Renate Bloem would be in Paris. Renate?

Renate sweat blood and tears to ensure civil society participation in
the WSISand I thinkhaving her speak at the opening of WSIS+10 would be
very appropriate.

Anriette


 
On 04/02/2013 20:28, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself)
> will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the
> opening session and is
>
> * interested in being considered for representing civil society in the
>   opening session or other such speaking slots that might become
>   available (as a way to provide diversity in a practical way and to 
>   acknowledge this large constituency symbolically, ideally we should
>   have two civil society representatives in each such session, but I
>   don't know whether the organizers will agree with that principle), and
>
> * willing to consult as broadly as reasonably possible among civil
>   society on points to make (such consultation needs to be broader than
>   just the IGC, as WSIS+10 is topically much broader than Internet
>   Governance - perhaps there is a reasonable way to quickly form an
>   informal "Civil Society Caucus for the Information Society"), and
>
> * willing and able to make points that are clear and make an impact
>   (empty container speeches and repetitions of what everyone else has
>   been saying are neither interesting nor useful for moving things
>   forward)
>
> ?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130205/94c2d826/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Feb  5 04:24:36 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:24:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <5110C8E5.2060808@apc.org>
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
	<5110C8E5.2060808@apc.org>
Message-ID: <20130205102436.40fc53e1@quill.bollow.ch>

Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> I think the input from CS should focus on the CS statement we drafted
> and submitted in December 2003: "Shaping information societies for
> human needs". This was a powerful document.. and as research APC is
> doing at the moment suggests.. many of the proposals in it have been
> overlooked in the post-WSIS follow-up process.

+1 to putting significant emphasis on

http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Feb  5 09:13:58 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 15:13:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>

Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:

> * Multistakeholderism and bottom up processes are not just used in
> Internet policy. It is high time to look at the other areas of policy
> that it is used for and how and why it works there.
> * The MDG review is the same year as WSIS+10. If the next 10 years of
> WSIS is just more discussion of governance processes given how many
> billions of humans aren't connected to the Internet at all yet, then
> we have all failed and we should think bigger.
> * The economy of the Information Age is transforming everything.
> Privacy, security, commerce, productivity, income gaps... Isn't that
> the sort of thing that really matters in real people's lives? Wouldn't
> everyone be better off if there were more linkages between all the
> different MS-based Internet policy shops? Why not spend some time at
> the IGF helping people understand how they can participate - and
> bringing some more of these processes into closer engagement?

These are good points IMO, although I don't see how they would fit
into our draft statement (see
http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107 )

Suggestions welcome!

Maybe "Multistakeholderism and bottom up processes in policy areas other
than Internet governance" would be a good workshop topic?

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 nashton at consensus.pro  Tue Feb  5 09:27:25 2013
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:27:25 +0000
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>

I tried putting them in. Given that there are paragraphs about IG for development, it shouldn't be hard to suggest that some connection with the MDG process is necessary.

On 5 Feb 2013, at 15:13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
> 
>> * Multistakeholderism and bottom up processes are not just used in
>> Internet policy. It is high time to look at the other areas of policy
>> that it is used for and how and why it works there.
>> * The MDG review is the same year as WSIS+10. If the next 10 years of
>> WSIS is just more discussion of governance processes given how many
>> billions of humans aren't connected to the Internet at all yet, then
>> we have all failed and we should think bigger.
>> * The economy of the Information Age is transforming everything.
>> Privacy, security, commerce, productivity, income gaps... Isn't that
>> the sort of thing that really matters in real people's lives? Wouldn't
>> everyone be better off if there were more linkages between all the
>> different MS-based Internet policy shops? Why not spend some time at
>> the IGF helping people understand how they can participate - and
>> bringing some more of these processes into closer engagement?
> 
> These are good points IMO, although I don't see how they would fit
> into our draft statement (see
> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107 )
> 
> Suggestions welcome!
> 
> Maybe "Multistakeholderism and bottom up processes in policy areas other
> than Internet governance" would be a good workshop topic?
> 
> 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Tue Feb  5 09:34:59 2013
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 09:34:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] FOCUS - 'Basic Gripes'
In-Reply-To: <13ca850610e.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <sympa.1360072960.22691.157@lists.igcaucus.org>

Hi Suresh,

No offence, but you just proved my point.
>I am sorry but somewhere midway between 50+ and 20 something, in my mid
thirties, *** that makes very little sense. ***

Your generation can't understand a Paradigm that the 50+ Crowed can,
and I don't expect that of you. It was a call for the 50+ crowed to get off
their ass and start addressing Basic issues.

> And domain tasting using drop catching is a thing of the past since ICANN
changed the costing model to eliminate incentives for that practice a while
back.

The violations, infractions, and practices of Registers involved in Drop
Catching, are not pursued and rarely enforced (inter-register insider-trading
comes to mind).

Bankers, well Debt Peonage may be something needed to be served, before
understanding how Bankers extract their wealth and leave the Poor in their
wake.

If you have a way to out-run compound interest, please let us know...

-
P.S.: Suresh, this would be a great book for you to read - its current:

THE BUBBLE AND BEYOND by Michael Hudson (Circa Oct 4, 2012)
http://www.amazon.com/THE-BUBBLE-AND-BEYOND-ebook/dp/B009M5TBMW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360075016&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Bubble+and+Beyond

I wish your Generation well.

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to 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 Feb  5 10:09:29 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 20:39:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] FOCUS - 'Basic Gripes'
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1360072960.22691.157@lists.igcaucus.org>
References: <sympa.1360072960.22691.157@lists.igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <AE2305BB-A717-4EF4-B28D-8A5D0CE26D8B@hserus.net>

Funnily enough I have had my fair share of discussions on circleid where I compare domain tasting of the sort you mention with the tulip and south sea bubbles.  They went away when the add grace period was killed off.   All this discussion took place in 2007, just before ICANN did kill off the add grace period (feb 2008).

http://www.circleid.com/posts/domain_name_portfolios_worth/ 

And I see registrars and registries work together to take down criminal domains (malware c&c etc) on a regular basis.  Not particularly newsworthy at all - any more than street cleaning and making sure the garbage is collected is.

--srs (iPad)

On 05-Feb-2013, at 20:04, "Yehuda Katz" <yehudakatz at mailinator.com> wrote:

> 
> The violations, infractions, and practices of Registers involved in Drop
> Catching, are not pursued and rarely enforced (inter-register insider-trading
> comes to mind).
> 

> THE BUBBLE AND BEYOND by Michael Hudson (Circa Oct 4, 2012)
> http://www.amazon.com/THE-BUBBLE-AND-BEYOND-ebook/dp/B009M5TBMW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360075016&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Bubble+and+Beyond
> 
> I wish your Generation well.

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Tue Feb  5 10:57:58 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:57:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <E2656993-59A4-44CE-8D89-FEC1A5819C51@acm.org>


On 4 Feb 2013, at 13:28, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
> 
> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself)
> will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the
> opening session and is

i will be there.

> * interested in being considered for representing civil society in the
>  opening session or other such speaking slots that might become
>  available (as a way to provide diversity in a practical way and to 
>  acknowledge this large constituency symbolically, ideally we should
>  have two civil society representatives in each such session, but I
>  don't know whether the organizers will agree with that principle), and

> 
> * willing to consult as broadly as reasonably possible among civil
>  society on points to make (such consultation needs to be broader than
>  just the IGC, as WSIS+10 is topically much broader than Internet
>  Governance - perhaps there is a reasonable way to quickly form an
>  informal "Civil Society Caucus for the Information Society"), and
> 
> * willing and able to make points that are clear and make an impact
>  (empty container speeches and repetitions of what everyone else has
>  been saying are neither interesting nor useful for moving things
>  forward)
> 

avaialble as needed.

avri


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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 11:34:05 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:34:05 -0800
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <E2656993-59A4-44CE-8D89-FEC1A5819C51@acm.org>
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch> <E2656993-59A4-44CE-8D89-FEC1A5819C51@acm.org>
Message-ID: <023501ce03be$abf98890$03ec99b0$@gmail.com>

It looks now that I'll be there and I'm interested in presenting in one of
the slots... preferably one where my interests/involvements in grassroots
and community based use of ICTs (community informatics) would be of some
value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_informatics

Depending on the slot it might be interesting/useful to engage the broader
community informatics network(s) (currently about 1500 strong)
http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers in providing input
into a presentation.  

The current plan now among those of us active/interested in both the CI
networks and IG/WSIS issues is to work towards some active involvement from
that network in the WSIS +10 preparations and then the event itself (and
hopefully broaden the current base of engagement to include a lot more
grassroots actors and associated researchers).

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:58 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris


On 4 Feb 2013, at 13:28, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
> 
> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself) 
> will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the 
> opening session and is

i will be there.

> * interested in being considered for representing civil society in the  
> opening session or other such speaking slots that might become  
> available (as a way to provide diversity in a practical way and to  
> acknowledge this large constituency symbolically, ideally we should  
> have two civil society representatives in each such session, but I  
> don't know whether the organizers will agree with that principle), and

> 
> * willing to consult as broadly as reasonably possible among civil  
> society on points to make (such consultation needs to be broader than  
> just the IGC, as WSIS+10 is topically much broader than Internet  
> Governance - perhaps there is a reasonable way to quickly form an  
> informal "Civil Society Caucus for the Information Society"), and
> 
> * willing and able to make points that are clear and make an impact  
> (empty container speeches and repetitions of what everyone else has  
> been saying are neither interesting nor useful for moving things
>  forward)
> 

avaialble as needed.

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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 12:11:45 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:11:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <023501ce03be$abf98890$03ec99b0$@gmail.com>
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch> <E2656993-59A4-44CE-8D89-FEC1A5819C51@acm.org>
 <023501ce03be$abf98890$03ec99b0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLt7Bx2Ej76kYRZq5HfcJsVBWY4h_Xu-yFYSi3+py4Z2jQ@mail.gmail.com>

Me parece que Gurstein tiene buenas propuestas...me gustaría que fuera mas
especifico o más claro en los asuntos de: Informática de la comunidad,
comunidad
informática de red, problemática de las redes.
En que forma puede mejorar y actualizar lists.igcaucus.org, en lo que creo
esta un poco desfasada de la realidad mundial y de los pueblos
 emergentes, en lo que atañe a las TIC y la libre información.

Me gustaría saber quienes son los candidatos a elegir, de donde provienen,
¿que interés tienen que
esperan recibir? y el porque de esa costumbre tan racista, de usar a sus
miembros y luego
desecharlos, como si ya no les fuera útil, parece que hubieran manos
extrañas interesadas detrás
de todo para que salga su elegido y todo siga igual... al menos espero las
gracias para todos.

Yo creo que todo aquel que quiera postular tiene que presentar
como mínimo un plan de gobierno
bien estructurado y moderno de acuerdo al momento que vivimos y futurista,
y si no lo hace no
puede ser calificado como aspirante...Es mi posición personal, y si no
gusta no me opongo
a que me cambien.

,

*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
*
*
*
*
*
*


2013/2/5 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>

> It looks now that I'll be there and I'm interested in presenting in one of
> the slots... preferably one where my interests/involvements in grassroots
> and community based use of ICTs (community informatics) would be of some
> value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_informatics
>
> Depending on the slot it might be interesting/useful to engage the broader
> community informatics network(s) (currently about 1500 strong)
> http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers in providing input
> into a presentation.
>
> The current plan now among those of us active/interested in both the CI
> networks and IG/WSIS issues is to work towards some active involvement from
> that network in the WSIS +10 preparations and then the event itself (and
> hopefully broaden the current base of engagement to include a lot more
> grassroots actors and associated researchers).
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:58 AM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
>
>
> On 4 Feb 2013, at 13:28, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> > [IGC Coordinator hat on]
> >
> > Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself)
> > will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the
> > opening session and is
>
> i will be there.
>
> > * interested in being considered for representing civil society in the
> > opening session or other such speaking slots that might become
> > available (as a way to provide diversity in a practical way and to
> > acknowledge this large constituency symbolically, ideally we should
> > have two civil society representatives in each such session, but I
> > don't know whether the organizers will agree with that principle), and
>
> >
> > * willing to consult as broadly as reasonably possible among civil
> > society on points to make (such consultation needs to be broader than
> > just the IGC, as WSIS+10 is topically much broader than Internet
> > Governance - perhaps there is a reasonable way to quickly form an
> > informal "Civil Society Caucus for the Information Society"), and
> >
> > * willing and able to make points that are clear and make an impact
> > (empty container speeches and repetitions of what everyone else has
> > been saying are neither interesting nor useful for moving things
> >  forward)
> >
>
> avaialble as needed.
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130205/f3bc93cc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 12:14:02 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:14:02 -0800
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch> <E2656993-59A4-44CE-8D89-FEC1A5819C51@acm.org> 
Message-ID: <028a01ce03c4$3b38bad0$b1aa3070$@gmail.com>

BTW, anyone interested in community informatics is welcome to join the
listserve... also note that there are specialized CI lists/networks for
Southern Africa, Canada, older persons, and indigenous peoples.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 8:34 AM
To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'
Subject: RE: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris

It looks now that I'll be there and I'm interested in presenting in one of
the slots... preferably one where my interests/involvements in grassroots
and community based use of ICTs (community informatics) would be of some
value. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_informatics

Depending on the slot it might be interesting/useful to engage the broader
community informatics network(s) (currently about 1500 strong)
http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers in providing input
into a presentation.  

The current plan now among those of us active/interested in both the CI
networks and IG/WSIS issues is to work towards some active involvement from
that network in the WSIS +10 preparations and then the event itself (and
hopefully broaden the current base of engagement to include a lot more
grassroots actors and associated researchers).

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:58 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris


On 4 Feb 2013, at 13:28, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
> 
> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself) 
> will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the 
> opening session and is

i will be there.

> * interested in being considered for representing civil society in the 
> opening session or other such speaking slots that might become 
> available (as a way to provide diversity in a practical way and to 
> acknowledge this large constituency symbolically, ideally we should 
> have two civil society representatives in each such session, but I 
> don't know whether the organizers will agree with that principle), and

> 
> * willing to consult as broadly as reasonably possible among civil 
> society on points to make (such consultation needs to be broader than 
> just the IGC, as WSIS+10 is topically much broader than Internet 
> Governance - perhaps there is a reasonable way to quickly form an 
> informal "Civil Society Caucus for the Information Society"), and
> 
> * willing and able to make points that are clear and make an impact 
> (empty container speeches and repetitions of what everyone else has 
> been saying are neither interesting nor useful for moving things
>  forward)
> 

avaialble as needed.

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 william.drake at uzh.ch  Tue Feb  5 13:21:49 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:21:49 -0800
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <E2656993-59A4-44CE-8D89-FEC1A5819C51@acm.org>
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch> <E2656993-59A4-44CE-8D89-FEC1A5819C51@acm.org>
Message-ID: <49B11E06-4574-406B-B6C6-CEAFEC7DC197@uzh.ch>



On Feb 5, 2013, at 7:57 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

>> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself)
>> will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the
>> opening session and is
> 
> i will be there.

As will I, and probably most of the MAG CS contingent, APC, some Best Bits people, etc.  Information can be pulled from the workshop line-ups…

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130205/ff76d14c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Feb  5 14:31:29 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:31:29 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
 <E2656993-59A4-44CE-8D89-FEC1A5819C51@acm.org>
 <49B11E06-4574-406B-B6C6-CEAFEC7DC197@uzh.ch>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133159F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 

 

		Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself)
		will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the
		opening session and is
		

	
	i will be there.

	 

	wolfgang



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

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

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

From stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it  Tue Feb  5 16:23:49 2013
From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Ing. Stefano Trumpy)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 22:23:49 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in
 Paris
In-Reply-To:   <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133159F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de
 >
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
 <E2656993-59A4-44CE-8D89-FEC1A5819C51@acm.org>
 <49B11E06-4574-406B-B6C6-CEAFEC7DC197@uzh.ch> 
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133159F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <a06240800cd3728c5709d@[146.48.48.162]>

>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>Content-type: text/plain
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>
>
>
>
>
>		Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who 
>(besides myself)
>		will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in 
>particular the
>		opening session and is
>
>
>
>	i will be there.
>
>

I will be there
Stefano

>	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


-- 
_________________________________________________________
Ing. Stefano TRUMPY
CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica

Phone: +39 050 3152634
Mobile: +39 348 8218618
E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it
http://www.iit.cnr.it/en/node/345
_________________________________________________________

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

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

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

From dvbirve at yandex.ru  Tue Feb  5 18:47:19 2013
From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 03:47:19 +0400
Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in
 Paris
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133159F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
 <E2656993-59A4-44CE-8D89-FEC1A5819C51@acm.org>
 <49B11E06-4574-406B-B6C6-CEAFEC7DC197@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133159F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <258401360108039@web24h.yandex.ru>

I will be there

Andrey Shcherbovich

05.02.2013, 23:32, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
>                 Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself)
>                 will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the
>                 opening session and is
>
>         i will be there.
>
>         wolfgang
>
> ,
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Feb  5 18:52:31 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:52:31 -0200
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130204192844.21924fec@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <51119B3F.7030707@cafonso.ca>

Norbert, I will be there but not as speaker :)

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 02/04/2013 04:28 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides myself)
> will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in particular the
> opening session and is
>
> * interested in being considered for representing civil society in the
>    opening session or other such speaking slots that might become
>    available (as a way to provide diversity in a practical way and to
>    acknowledge this large constituency symbolically, ideally we should
>    have two civil society representatives in each such session, but I
>    don't know whether the organizers will agree with that principle), and
>
> * willing to consult as broadly as reasonably possible among civil
>    society on points to make (such consultation needs to be broader than
>    just the IGC, as WSIS+10 is topically much broader than Internet
>    Governance - perhaps there is a reasonable way to quickly form an
>    informal "Civil Society Caucus for the Information Society"), and
>
> * willing and able to make points that are clear and make an impact
>    (empty container speeches and repetitions of what everyone else has
>    been saying are neither interesting nor useful for moving things
>    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 mazzone at ebu.ch  Wed Feb  6 05:16:21 2013
From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:16:21 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in
 Paris
In-Reply-To: <a06240800cd3728c5709d@[146.48.48.162]>
Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CFA6176F351@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>

I shall attend.
Giacomo

----- Original Message -----
From: Ing. Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:23 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris

>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>Content-type: text/plain
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>
>
>
>
>
>		Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who 
>(besides myself)
>		will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in 
>particular the
>		opening session and is
>
>
>
>	i will be there.
>
>

I will be there
Stefano

>	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


-- 
_________________________________________________________
Ing. Stefano TRUMPY
CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica

Phone: +39 050 3152634
Mobile: +39 348 8218618
E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it
http://www.iit.cnr.it/en/node/345
_________________________________________________________

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

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************


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

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

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

From kovenronald at aol.com  Wed Feb  6 06:27:52 2013
From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 06:27:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CFA6176F351@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
References: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CFA6176F351@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Message-ID: <8CFD27422B5A6A3-F64-C2E@webmail-m166.sysops.aol.com>

I'll b there.


Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee



-----Original Message-----
From: Mazzone, Giacomo <mazzone at ebu.ch>
To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it' <stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it>; 'wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de' <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 11:16 am
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris


I shall attend.
Giacomo

----- Original Message -----
From: Ing. Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:23 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris

>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>Content-type: text/plain
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>
>
>
>
>
>		Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who 
>(besides myself)
>		will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in 
>particular the
>		opening session and is
>
>
>
>	i will be there.
>
>

I will be there
Stefano

>	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


-- 
_________________________________________________________
Ing. Stefano TRUMPY
CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica

Phone: +39 050 3152634
Mobile: +39 348 8218618
E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it
http://www.iit.cnr.it/en/node/345
_________________________________________________________

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

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This 
footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************



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

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

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

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130206/b6072f58/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From caribe at entropia.blog.br  Wed Feb  6 07:44:32 2013
From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (Joao Carlos Caribe)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:44:32 -0200
Subject: [governance] 2015 the trapped Internet
Message-ID: <ED53DA57-6B61-4421-B646-CEDC13E38125@entropia.blog.br>

Dears,

I made this essay based on the paths of the actual Internet Policy at Brazil, we are under the worst scenario, and need the support for local and international institutions to change our future to the opposite that my words on this dystopia.

http://entropia.blog.br/en/2015-the-trapped-internet/

Enjoy, think about and spread the words 

--
João Carlos Caribé
Publicitário e Consultor de mídias sociais
http://entropia.blog.br 
caribe at entropia.blog.br
twitter @caribe / skype joaocaribe 
(21) 8761 1967









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130206/819dbc00/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From divina.meigs at orange.fr  Wed Feb  6 07:53:20 2013
From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:53:20 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in
 Paris
In-Reply-To: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CFA6176F351@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Message-ID: <CD3810D0.3B4E9%divina.meigs@orange.fr>

I will be there as well (presenting a report and organizing a workshop on
"contested governance")
Divina 




Le 06/02/13 11:16, « Mazzone, Giacomo » <mazzone at ebu.ch> a écrit :

> I shall attend.
> Giacomo
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ing. Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:23 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
> 
>> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>> Content-type: text/plain
>> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who
>> (besides myself)
>> will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in
>> particular the
>> opening session and is
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> i will be there.
>> 
>> 
> 
> I will be there
> Stefano
> 
>> wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 



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

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

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

From f.massit at orange.fr  Wed Feb  6 08:20:37 2013
From: f.massit at orange.fr (massit follea)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:20:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <CD3810D0.3B4E9%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <CD3810D0.3B4E9%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <BF38A4C9-1B32-41E9-82E9-1DE8C390E6F9@orange.fr>

+ 1
françoise massit-follea
f.massit at orange.fr
06 74 51 67 65


Le 6 févr. 2013 à 13:53, Divina MEIGS a écrit :

> I will be there as well (presenting a report and organizing a workshop on
> "contested governance")
> Divina 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 06/02/13 11:16, « Mazzone, Giacomo » <mazzone at ebu.ch> a écrit :
> 
>> I shall attend.
>> Giacomo
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Ing. Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:23 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
>> 
>>> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>>> Content-type: text/plain
>>> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who
>>> (besides myself)
>>> will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in
>>> particular the
>>> opening session and is
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> i will be there.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> I will be there
>> Stefano
>> 
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t





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

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Feb  6 08:53:21 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 08:53:21 -0500
Subject: [governance] Are Techies from Venus and Non-techies from Mars
 :)
In-Reply-To: <119d01cdff2f$f1bf3c00$d53db400$@gmail.com>
References: <119d01cdff2f$f1bf3c00$d53db400$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxi_XoQvM9c7J4PguRKU1v=NJwKft+1ibDRBzHy06vwrbQ@mail.gmail.com>

Here is an interesting use of the word "markets" in a communications "Manifesto"

http://www.cluetrain.com/

rgds,

McTim

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:22 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> In the course of some private discussions with techie colleagues concerning
> my comments on RFC 6852  it fairly quickly became clear that we were using
> the terminology around "competition"and "collaboration" in quite
> different--in fact, diametrically opposite, ways.
>
> For me "competition" evokes market based relationships and in fact, in most
> policy discourses "competition" is generally used as a code word for the
> pursuit of private interests and "free markets" a la the Washington
> Consensus actively promoting the opening up of telecom markets globally (as
> Milton quite correctly, if disparagingly, understood in his reply to my
> original comments).  Similarly for me "collaboration" refers to the joint
> puruit of common goals (as for example, social collaboration in support of
> the public interest, or p2p relationships, social solidarity and so on) and
> in a policy context would be appropriate to interpose as a balance to a
> position supporting "competition".
>
> For my tech colleagues the understanding, at least according to two
> non-communicating tech folks was that "competition" is seen as being the
> means by which to "limit the power of otherwise overly powerful corporations
> and cartels". While on the other hand "collaboration" needs to be controlled
> "otherwise it will lead to the formation of harmful cartels".  (While these
> latter uses of the terms are clearly correct they would never have occurred
> to me, at least, as being primary definitions that might be used in a
> document such as RFC 6852.)
>
> (As an aside, I'm wondering whether at least some of the disputes that have
> been recurrent themes of the IGC discussions might not have similar origins
> in rather profound domain centric mutual misunderstandings as to the use of
> quite common terms.)
>
> M
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From aizu at anr.org  Wed Feb  6 09:04:52 2013
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 23:04:52 +0900
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <BF38A4C9-1B32-41E9-82E9-1DE8C390E6F9@orange.fr>
References: <CD3810D0.3B4E9%divina.meigs@orange.fr> <BF38A4C9-1B32-41E9-82E9-1DE8C390E6F9@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKiMRpycyi4kP=S+UDyejUMboYZ+sQUX85O+WtaxYn7=WA@mail.gmail.com>

+1.

izumi

2013/2/6 massit follea <f.massit at orange.fr>:
> + 1
> françoise massit-follea
> f.massit at orange.fr
> 06 74 51 67 65
>
>
> Le 6 févr. 2013 à 13:53, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>
>> I will be there as well (presenting a report and organizing a workshop on
>> "contested governance")
>> Divina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 06/02/13 11:16, « Mazzone, Giacomo » <mazzone at ebu.ch> a écrit :
>>
>>> I shall attend.
>>> Giacomo
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Ing. Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:23 PM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>>> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
>>>
>>>> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>>>> Content-type: text/plain
>>>> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who
>>>> (besides myself)
>>>> will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in
>>>> particular the
>>>> opening session and is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i will be there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will be there
>>> Stefano
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org

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

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

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

From Dixie at global-partners.co.uk  Wed Feb  6 10:58:59 2013
From: Dixie at global-partners.co.uk (Dixie Hawtin)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:58:59 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKiMRpycyi4kP=S+UDyejUMboYZ+sQUX85O+WtaxYn7=WA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CD3810D0.3B4E9%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <BF38A4C9-1B32-41E9-82E9-1DE8C390E6F9@orange.fr>
 <CA+YNoKiMRpycyi4kP=S+UDyejUMboYZ+sQUX85O+WtaxYn7=WA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C585EB1D915@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

I'll be there! Dixie

-----Original Message-----
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
Sent: 06 February 2013 14:05
To: governance; massit follea
Cc: Divina MEIGS; Mazzone, Giacomo; stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris

+1.

izumi

2013/2/6 massit follea <f.massit at orange.fr>:
> + 1
> françoise massit-follea
> f.massit at orange.fr
> 06 74 51 67 65
>
>
> Le 6 févr. 2013 à 13:53, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>
>> I will be there as well (presenting a report and organizing a 
>> workshop on "contested governance") Divina
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 06/02/13 11:16, « Mazzone, Giacomo » <mazzone at ebu.ch> a écrit :
>>
>>> I shall attend.
>>> Giacomo
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Ing. Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:23 PM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 
>>> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" 
>>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 
>>> in Paris
>>>
>>>> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>>>> Content-type: text/plain
>>>> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides 
>>>> myself) will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in 
>>>> particular the opening session and is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i will be there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will be there
>>> Stefano
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org


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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Feb  6 11:35:06 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 08:35:06 -0800
Subject: [governance] Are Techies from Venus and Non-techies from Mars
 :)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi_XoQvM9c7J4PguRKU1v=NJwKft+1ibDRBzHy06vwrbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <119d01cdff2f$f1bf3c00$d53db400$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxi_XoQvM9c7J4PguRKU1v=NJwKft+1ibDRBzHy06vwrbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <027d01ce0487$fabdec90$f039c5b0$@gmail.com>

Thanks McTim for reminding us of this document which was very influential in
its time and is still interesting.

I'ld forgotten about their very interesting and creative refiguring of the
term "markets".  I think in literary analysis terminology that's called a
"synechdoche"-- which according to that source of all wisdom and
understanding Wikipedia, means "simultaneous understanding"-- "a figure of
speech in which a term for a part of something is used to refer to the whole
of something, or vice-versa."

Now re-reading this with fresh eyes after 15 years or so... It's hard to
quite pin down what they mean by "markets" but I think the closest is #39
"The community of discourse is the market."--where they seem to indicate
that they are using "market" as a synonym for "community"... (this seems to
be close to the way in which Anthropologists usually use the term "markets"
and about as far from how classical/conventional Economists use the of term
as it is possible to be).

If one re-reads the Manifesto and systematically substitutes the term
"community" for "market/markets" you come perilously close to turning this
into a Community Informatics manifesto and one which I would of course,
strongly agree!

Thanks again for this,

M

Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development
and Training (CCIRDT)
Vancouver, BC CANADA

tel/fax: +1-604-602-0624
email: gurstein at gmail.com
web: http://communityinformatics.net
blog: http://gurstein.wordpress.com
twitter: #michaelgurstein


-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 5:53 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] Are Techies from Venus and Non-techies from Mars
:)

Here is an interesting use of the word "markets" in a communications
"Manifesto"

http://www.cluetrain.com/

rgds,

McTim

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 4:22 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
> In the course of some private discussions with techie colleagues 
> concerning my comments on RFC 6852  it fairly quickly became clear 
> that we were using the terminology around "competition"and 
> "collaboration" in quite different--in fact, diametrically opposite, ways.
>
> For me "competition" evokes market based relationships and in fact, in 
> most policy discourses "competition" is generally used as a code word 
> for the pursuit of private interests and "free markets" a la the 
> Washington Consensus actively promoting the opening up of telecom 
> markets globally (as Milton quite correctly, if disparagingly, 
> understood in his reply to my original comments).  Similarly for me 
> "collaboration" refers to the joint puruit of common goals (as for 
> example, social collaboration in support of the public interest, or 
> p2p relationships, social solidarity and so on) and in a policy 
> context would be appropriate to interpose as a balance to a position
supporting "competition".
>
> For my tech colleagues the understanding, at least according to two 
> non-communicating tech folks was that "competition" is seen as being 
> the means by which to "limit the power of otherwise overly powerful 
> corporations and cartels". While on the other hand "collaboration" 
> needs to be controlled "otherwise it will lead to the formation of 
> harmful cartels".  (While these latter uses of the terms are clearly 
> correct they would never have occurred to me, at least, as being 
> primary definitions that might be used in a document such as RFC 
> 6852.)
>
> (As an aside, I'm wondering whether at least some of the disputes that 
> have been recurrent themes of the IGC discussions might not have 
> similar origins in rather profound domain centric mutual 
> misunderstandings as to the use of quite common terms.)
>
> M
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


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

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

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

From deborah at accessnow.org  Wed Feb  6 13:08:12 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 13:08:12 -0500
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C585EB1D915@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <CD3810D0.3B4E9%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<BF38A4C9-1B32-41E9-82E9-1DE8C390E6F9@orange.fr>
	<CA+YNoKiMRpycyi4kP=S+UDyejUMboYZ+sQUX85O+WtaxYn7=WA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C585EB1D915@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQY9f6-inest8mfszDAJNLgNwCTP1E6N5LiaEhaNaWTU1Q@mail.gmail.com>

I will be there too, with my colleague from Access, Raegan MacDonald, who
will be speaking on a panel on "Public and industry regulatory initiatives
in the field of intellectual property enforcement".

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/wsis/WSIS_10_Event/1_Public_and_industry_regulatory_initatives_in_the_field.pdf

Deborah


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Dixie Hawtin
<Dixie at global-partners.co.uk>wrote:

> I'll be there! Dixie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi
> AIZU
> Sent: 06 February 2013 14:05
> To: governance; massit follea
> Cc: Divina MEIGS; Mazzone, Giacomo; stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it;
> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
>
> +1.
>
> izumi
>
> 2013/2/6 massit follea <f.massit at orange.fr>:
> > + 1
> > françoise massit-follea
> > f.massit at orange.fr
> > 06 74 51 67 65
> >
> >
> > Le 6 févr. 2013 à 13:53, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
> >
> >> I will be there as well (presenting a report and organizing a
> >> workshop on "contested governance") Divina
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 06/02/13 11:16, « Mazzone, Giacomo » <mazzone at ebu.ch> a écrit :
> >>
> >>> I shall attend.
> >>> Giacomo
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Ing. Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:23 PM
> >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
> >>> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> >>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> >>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10
> >>> in Paris
> >>>
> >>>> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> >>>> Content-type: text/plain
> >>>> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides
> >>>> myself) will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in
> >>>> particular the opening session and is
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> i will be there.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I will be there
> >>> Stefano
> >>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>
>
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
S. deborah.l.brown
T. deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130206/56a2b99c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Feb  6 15:47:02 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 21:47:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] WCIT US HearingParis
References: <CD3810D0.3B4E9%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
 <BF38A4C9-1B32-41E9-82E9-1DE8C390E6F9@orange.fr>
 <CA+YNoKiMRpycyi4kP=S+UDyejUMboYZ+sQUX85O+WtaxYn7=WA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013315B2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/fighting-for-internet-freedom-dubai-and-beyond

FYI
 
wolfgang
 

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb  7 06:23:33 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:23:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Message-ID: <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>

[IGC Coordinator hat on]

Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text. (The
remaining time will be used for resolving such suggestions and
concerns, and for finalizing our submission in regard to formatting
etc.)

Again, the working document is at:  

http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Thu Feb  7 13:33:16 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 13:33:16 -0500
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <25488FE1-9E27-4CEA-B18E-E8E3B583349A@acm.org>


On 7 Feb 2013, at 06:23, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Again, the working document is at:  
> 
> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107


and how does one access to comment on this?

do we need yet another account and password?

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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Thu Feb  7 14:55:15 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 14:55:15 -0500
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <25488FE1-9E27-4CEA-B18E-E8E3B583349A@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <25488FE1-9E27-4CEA-B18E-E8E3B583349A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLuFgBVuTOajZs70ZjDUpKL8RWu9w=tY9yfwSUH9Ubzr3Q@mail.gmail.com>

Lo que necesitamos es ponernos a trabajar ya... ¿Y cuando nos dan nuestros
correos personalizados?...por lo pronto ya tengo un bosquejo de selección
de candidatos...espero contactarme con los demás miembros, ya debemos estar
en contacto permanente e intercambiando pareceres...


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/7 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

>
> On 7 Feb 2013, at 06:23, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> > Again, the working document is at:
> >
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>
>
> and how does one access to comment on this?
>
> do we need yet another account and password?
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130207/a31bc1a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Thu Feb  7 15:14:40 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:14:40 -0500
Subject: [governance] Testing the Translation
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLuvMOPpC5bVwUCcFj_3oi_a_4B7=wHS6G6PBO2DStHhFQ@mail.gmail.com>

What we need is to get to work and ... And when we get our custom e? ...
For now I have a sketch and candidate selection ... hopefully contact with
other members, and must be in constant contact and exchanging views ...


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130207/1616e534/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb  7 15:16:15 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:16:15 +0100
Subject: QUESTION FOR JEREMY Re: [governance] caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <25488FE1-9E27-4CEA-B18E-E8E3B583349A@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<25488FE1-9E27-4CEA-B18E-E8E3B583349A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130207211615.28ab0b4c@quill.bollow.ch>

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2013, at 06:23, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> > Again, the working document is at:  
> > 
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
> 
> and how does one access to comment on this?

[IGC Coordinator hat on]

I don't really know, except that it works for me. :-)

May Jeremy can answer this question?

> do we need yet another account and password?

In any case you can also post comments here on the list, preferably
with a reference to the paragraph number and suggested text for a
proposed change.

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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Thu Feb  7 15:25:00 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:25:00 -0500
Subject: [governance] my personal position
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLt6fbcnW_9jgRS90JMX7VtDQkenh20f2Vt=T5gL042XrA@mail.gmail.com>

I think it has good proposals Gurstein ... I wish it was more specific and
clearer issues: community informatics, community network computing,
networks issues.
In that way you can improve and update lists.igcaucus.org, in what I think
is a little out of step with global realities and peoples
  emerging in relation to ICT and free information.

I wonder who the candidates to choose from, they come from, what interest
have to
expect? and because of this habit as racist, using its members and then
discard them as if they were no longer useful, it would seem strange hands
behind interested
you leave everything to your chosen and everything remains the same ... at
least I hope thanks to all.

I think anyone who wants to apply must submit at least a government plan
modern and well structured according to the time we live and futuristic,
and if it does not
can be qualified as a candidate ... is my personal position, and if I am
not opposed disliked
to change me.

And as they give personalized emails, or keep the same ...





*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130207/e3e3db3e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Thu Feb  7 15:39:51 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:39:51 -0500
Subject: [governance] How do we do?
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLt44jafne8Wa9TfOpZbrT2567iyfPb6+CJSgEyLbg7_3Q@mail.gmail.com>

What about former members of Caucos? ... I wonder, how to access and do not
know it, and the easiest is asked to make their comments on the list ...
and if the nominees need to agree on certain comments without come out to
the public, how we?


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130207/1c0b4182/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Feb  7 19:34:10 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:34:10 +0800
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <25488FE1-9E27-4CEA-B18E-E8E3B583349A@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <25488FE1-9E27-4CEA-B18E-E8E3B583349A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <2447DA03-DD34-49F2-B9A3-ACAEBB48689E@ciroap.org>

On 08/02/2013, at 2:33 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 
> On 7 Feb 2013, at 06:23, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
>> Again, the working document is at:  
>> 
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
> 
> 
> and how does one access to comment on this?
> 
> do we need yet another account and password?


No login is necessary, just type your name when you leave your comment by clicking on a speech bubble.  We had this commenting webapp for a while (from before we had the etherpad), but haven't used it much over the last year.  

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130208/6503da89/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb  7 19:07:06 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 05:37:06 +0530
Subject: [governance] The Political Economy of Cyberspace Masters of the
 Internet
Message-ID: <511441AA.2050504@itforchange.net>

The Political Economy of Cyberspace Masters of the Internet
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/07/masters-of-the-internet/
FEBRUARY 07, 2013

The Political Economy of Cyberspace
Masters of the Internet
by DAN SCHILLER
The geopolitics of the Internet broke open during the first half of 
December at an international conference in Dubai convened by 
the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN affiliate agency 
with 193 national members. At these meetings, states (thronged 
by corporate advisors) forge agreements to enable international 
communications via cables and satellites. These gatherings, however 
boring and bureaucratic, are crucial because of the enormous importance 
of networks in the operation of the transnational political economy.

The December 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications 
(WCIT) in Dubai produced a major controversy: should ITU members vest 
the agency with oversight responsibilities for the Internet, 
responsibilities comparable to those it has exercised for decades for 
other forms of international communication?

The United States said no, and the US position won out: the new ITU 
treaty document did not grant the agency a formal role in what has come 
to be called “global Internet governance”. However, a majority of 
countries voted to attach a resolution “invit[ing] member states 
to elaborate on their respective position on international 
Internet-related technical, development and public policy issues within 
the mandate of the ITU at various ITU fora.” Objecting to “even symbolic 
global oversight”, as a New York Times writer put it (1), the US refused 
to sign the treaty and walked away. So did France, Germany, Japan, 
India, Kenya, Colombia, Canada, Britain and other nations. However, more 
than two-thirds of the attending countries — 89 all told — endorsed the 
document. (And some of the nations that did not sign may accept 
the treaty later.)

To understand what is at stake we need to make our way through the 
rhetorical smog. For months prior to the WCIT, the Euro-American press 
trumpeted warnings that this was to be an epochal clash between 
upholders of an open Internet and would-be government usurpers, led by 
authoritarian states like Russia, Iran and China. The terms of reference 
were set so rigidly that one European telecom company executive called 
it a campaign of “propaganda warfare” (2).

Freedom of expression is no trifling issue. No matter where we live, 
there is reason for worry that the Internet’s relative openness is 
being usurped, corroded or canalised. This does not necessarily imply 
armies of state censors or “great firewalls”. The US National 
Security Agency, for example, sifts wholesale through electronic 
transmissions transiting satellite and cable networks, through its 
extensive “listening posts” and its gigantic new data centre at 
Bluffdale Utah (3); and the US government has gone after a true 
proponent of freedom of expression — WikiLeaks — in deadly earnest. US 
Internet companies such as Facebook and Google have transformed the Web 
into a “surveillance engine” to vacuum up commercially profitable data 
about users’ behaviour.

Interests Concealed

Even during the 1970s, the rhetoric of “free flow of information” had 
long functioned as a central tenet of US foreign policy. During the era 
of decolonisation and cold war the doctrine purported to be a shining 
beacon, lighting the world’s way to emancipation from imperialism 
and state repression. Today it continues to paint deep-seated economic 
and strategic interests in an appealing language of universal 
human rights. “Internet freedom”, “freedom to connect”, “net freedom” — 
terms circulated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 
Google executives together in the run-up to the WCIT — are today’s 
version of the longstanding “free flow” precept. But just as before, 
“Internet freedom” is a red herring. Calculatingly manipulative, it 
tells us to entrust a fundamental human right to a pair of powerfully 
self-interested social actors: corporations and states.

The deliberations at the WCIT were multifaceted, and encompassed 
crosscutting issues. One was the terms of trade between 
Internet services like Google and the companies that transport their 
voluminous data streams — network operators and ISPs like Verizon, 
Deutsche Telekom or Free. This business fight harbours implications for 
a more general and important policy issue: who should pay for the 
continual modernisations of network infrastructure on which recurrent 
augmentations and enhancements of Internet service depend. Xavier 
Niel’s bold attack on Google’s French revenues, when he implemented an 
ad-blocker as his Free network’s default setting, placed this issue 
in bold relief before the public. But the terms of trade in the global 
Internet industry are also important because any general edict that 
content providers must pay network operators — Niel’s goal, similar to 
that of other telecom companies — would carry grave consequences for 
the Net Neutrality policies which have been so vital for Internet users.

Until now, this power has been wielded disproportionately by the US (4). 
During the 1990s, when the web-centric Internet exploded onto the world 
stage, the US made intense efforts to institutionalise its management 
role. Domain names led by dotcom, and numerical web addresses and 
network identifiers, need to be unique for the system to operate; and 
the ability to assign them in turn establishes a point from which 
institutional power may be projected over the extraterritorial Internet. 
Management of these critical Internet resources is exercised by a US 
agency, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), under contract 
to the US Department of Commerce. The IANA operates ostensibly as a unit 
of a separate, and seemingly more accountable, California-based 
non-profit called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers (ICANN). Technical standards for the Internet are developed by 
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architecture 
Board (IAB) within another non-profit corporation, the Internet Society. 
The composition and funding of these organisations render them more 
responsive to US preferences than to users’ demands (5).

The leading global commercial Internet sites are not operated by Chinese 
or Russian, let alone by Kenyan or Mexican capital. As everyone knows, 
it is Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon that have built up 
the dotcom services used by people all over the world. And a widening 
array of commodification projects and corporate commodity chains 
continues to be predicated on cross-border flows of Internet data; 
today’s ongoing transition schillerdigito “cloud computing” services 
will further widen this dependence. The Internet’s unbalanced control 
structure provides an essential basis for US corporate and military 
supremacy in cyberspace. While the US government exercises an outsized 
role, other states possess scant opportunity — individually or 
collectively — to regulate the system. By instituting various technical 
and legal measures, of course, they may exercise sovereignty over their 
domestic Internets; but even when they stake out these merely national 
jurisdictions, they are assailed by US policymakers. Milton Mueller 
aptly captures this asymmetry in observing that, as it is presently 
constituted, the Internet embodies a US policy of “unilateral globalism” 
(6).

Property logic

Exercising this management function has permitted the US to instil 
property-logic at the heart of Internet system development — through 
ICANN. Although it is a complex, semi-autonomous institution, ICANN’s 
power over the Domain Name System was deployed to confer 
extraterritorial advantages on corporate trademark owners and other 
property interests — over the protests of non-commercial organisations 
which, despite being represented within ICANN, found themselves unable 
to prevail over Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble and other big companies. And 
ICANN used private contract law to bind to its rules the far-flung 
organisations which administer generic and country code top-level 
domains worldwide. National providers of various Internet applications 
control their domestic markets in a number of countries, including 
Russia, China and the Republic of Korea. Yet the transnational Internet 
services — the most profitable and strategic points in this 
extraterritorial system — are citadels built by US capital and state power.

Nearly from the outset, other nations have resisted their subordinate 
status. As signs that the US was not about to relinquish its 
control grew, so did opposition. It helped prompt a series of 
high-profile meetings — the World Summit on the Information Society, 
organised by the ITU and held in Geneva and Tunis between 2003 and 2005.

This World Summit was an explicit precursor of the 2012 clash in Dubai, 
in that it established at least a small beachhead for states 
(beside that of the US) in global Internet governance. ICANN’s 
“Government Advisory Committee”, charged with providing input to the 
organisation’s “multi-stakeholder” process, grants governments the same 
formal status as corporations and civil society groups. Many states 
actually might have been content with this curious arrangement, but for 
one glaring fact. For all the crowing about bottom-up diversity and 
multi-stakeholderism, global Internet governance was not an egalitarian, 
or even a pluralist, enterprise. It was patent that stakeholder 
number one was the US Executive Branch.

The demise of the unipolar moment, followed by the plunge into what has 
become a long world depression, greatly accentuated and widened 
interstate conflict over the political economy of cyberspace. Other 
governments continued to look for a point of leverage, from which they 
could attempt to open up global Internet coordination and management. In 
2010-11 they even appealed directly to the US Department of Commerce, 
when it began a proceeding to evaluate its contract renewal with IANA 
for the management of Internet addresses. Quite extraordinarily, several 
countries and one international organisation — the ITU — submitted 
formal comments. The government of Kenya proposed a “transition” away 
from management of the IANA functions by the US Department of Commerce, 
and toward a multilateral government-centred regime. US control should 
be modified by globalising the arrangements for the entire 
institutional superstructure that had been built up around Internet 
names and addresses. India, Mexico, Egypt and China made strikingly 
similar submissions.

Dan Schiller is professor at the University of Illinois 
(Urbana-Champaign) and author of ‘Digital Capitalism: Networking the 
Global Market Systems’ (MIT Press, Cambridge, US, 2000)

Notes.

(1) Eric Pfanner, “Message, if murky, from U.S. to world”, The New York 
Times, 15 December 2012.

(2) Rachel Sanderson and Daniel Thomas, “US under fire after telecoms 
treaty talks fail”, Financial Times, London, 17 December 2012.

(3) James Bamford, “The NSA is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy 
Center”, Wired, San Francisco, April 2012.

(4) Dwayne Winseck, “Big New Global Threat to the Internet or Paper 
Tiger? The ITU and Global Internet Regulation”, 10 June 
2012; dwmw.wordpress.com

(5) Harold Kwalwasser, “Internet Governance”,Cyberpower and National 
Security, National Defense University Press-Potomac 
Press, Washington-Dulles, 2009.

(6) Milton L Mueller, Networks and States: the Global Politics of 
Internet Governance, MIT Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 2010.

(7) L Gordon Crovitz, “America’s first big digital defeat”,The Wall 
Street Journal, New York, 17 December 2012.

The US responded by ratcheting up the rhetoric of “Internet freedom” as 
an attempt to repel the escalating threat to its management control. No 
doubt it has intensified its bilateral lobbying to induce some of the 
dissenting states to come back into the fold. The effects became evident 
at the WCIT, when India and Kenya joined the US in rejecting the treaty.

What will happen now? It’s certain that US government agencies and 
leading units of Internet capital such as Google will continue to 
project all the power at their disposal to strengthen the US-centric 
Internet, and to discredit its opponents. The political challenge to the 
US’s “global unilateralism”, however, now has broken into the open — 
where it is certain to remain. A Wall Street Journal editorialist did 
not hesitate to call Dubai “America’s first big digital defeat” (7).

This article appears in the excellent Le Monde Diplomatique, whose 
English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full 
text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch 
features two or three articles from LMD every month.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130208/8d72a907/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130208/8d72a907/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 23939 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130208/8d72a907/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From hakik at hakik.org  Thu Feb  7 23:35:15 2013
From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 04:35:15 +0000
Subject: [governance] Cannot access Youtube from Bangladesh
In-Reply-To: <25488FE1-9E27-4CEA-B18E-E8E3B583349A@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
 <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <25488FE1-9E27-4CEA-B18E-E8E3B583349A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <E1U3fgK-0003as-7d@se3.mailspamprotection.com>

Cannot access Youtube from Dhaka. Anyone can share his/her experience 
like this. What could be the reason!

Thanks,
Hakikur


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb  8 16:51:25 2013
From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:51:25 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Removed from nomcom
In-Reply-To: <E1U3fVu-0000M8-S6@igcaucus.org>
References: <E1U3fVu-0000M8-S6@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <CAE1T72RxqAZONiyc=Vv=ps=9gNnLq9tmMQJGWaTo8zoOu1A_eQ@mail.gmail.com>

Can someone assist me with the email below, i dont understand it.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <nomcom-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Subject: Removed from nomcom
To: devonrb at gmail.com


Your address (devonrb at gmail.com) has been removed from list
nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org, likely due to excessive
non-delivery reports for your address.

You can subscribe again:
mailto:sympa at lists.igcaucus.org?subject=sub%20nomcom



-- 
Devon Blake
Special Projects Director
Earthwise Solutions Limited
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130208/dd6e47f1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Feb  8 19:57:04 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 06:27:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Removed from nomcom
In-Reply-To: <CAE1T72RxqAZONiyc=Vv=ps=9gNnLq9tmMQJGWaTo8zoOu1A_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1U3fVu-0000M8-S6@igcaucus.org>
 <CAE1T72RxqAZONiyc=Vv=ps=9gNnLq9tmMQJGWaTo8zoOu1A_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13cbc747f5c.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Your address has been bouncing mail from the nomcom list for some 
reason. If your email was working on during that time, the igcaucus 
email admin can check his mail logs to determine the reason.

Once those logs are available I will be glad to help diagnose the issue 
and suggest a way forward

--srs (htc one x)



On 9 February 2013 3:21:25 AM Devon Blake <devonrb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can someone assist me with the email below, i dont understand it.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <nomcom-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Date: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:24 PM
> Subject: Removed from nomcom
> To: devonrb at gmail.com
>
>
> Your address (devonrb at gmail.com) has been removed from list
> nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org, likely due to excessive
> non-delivery reports for your address.
>
> You can subscribe again:
> mailto:sympa at lists.igcaucus.org?subject=sub%20nomcom
>
>
>
> --
> Devon Blake
> Special Projects Director
> Earthwise Solutions Limited
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130209/790eb77d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From capdasiege at gmail.com  Sat Feb  9 06:16:55 2013
From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 12:16:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQY9f6-inest8mfszDAJNLgNwCTP1E6N5LiaEhaNaWTU1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CD3810D0.3B4E9%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
	<BF38A4C9-1B32-41E9-82E9-1DE8C390E6F9@orange.fr>
	<CA+YNoKiMRpycyi4kP=S+UDyejUMboYZ+sQUX85O+WtaxYn7=WA@mail.gmail.com>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C585EB1D915@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<CALU7RQY9f6-inest8mfszDAJNLgNwCTP1E6N5LiaEhaNaWTU1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPm5NK60bCCKpWeLwfMZ4_HiJjCTO7su116jSfmFF=Vacs29Lw@mail.gmail.com>

+1

Best,

2013/2/6 Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org>

> I will be there too, with my colleague from Access, Raegan MacDonald, who
> will be speaking on a panel on "Public and industry regulatory initiatives
> in the field of intellectual property enforcement".
>
>
> http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/wsis/WSIS_10_Event/1_Public_and_industry_regulatory_initatives_in_the_field.pdf
>
> Deborah
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Dixie Hawtin <Dixie at global-partners.co.uk
> > wrote:
>
>> I'll be there! Dixie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> Izumi AIZU
>> Sent: 06 February 2013 14:05
>> To: governance; massit follea
>> Cc: Divina MEIGS; Mazzone, Giacomo; stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it;
>> Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in Paris
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> 2013/2/6 massit follea <f.massit at orange.fr>:
>> > + 1
>> > françoise massit-follea
>> > f.massit at orange.fr
>> > 06 74 51 67 65
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 6 févr. 2013 à 13:53, Divina MEIGS a écrit :
>> >
>> >> I will be there as well (presenting a report and organizing a
>> >> workshop on "contested governance") Divina
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Le 06/02/13 11:16, « Mazzone, Giacomo » <mazzone at ebu.ch> a écrit :
>> >>
>> >>> I shall attend.
>> >>> Giacomo
>> >>>
>> >>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>> From: Ing. Stefano Trumpy [mailto:stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it]
>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:23 PM
>> >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>> >>> "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> >>> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>> >>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10
>> >>> in Paris
>> >>>
>> >>>> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
>> >>>> Content-type: text/plain
>> >>>> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Could we have a quick show of hands/emails please who (besides
>> >>>> myself) will be in Paris for the WSIS+10 event including in
>> >>>> particular the opening session and is
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> i will be there.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I will be there
>> >>> Stefano
>> >>>
>> >>>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>
>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>
>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
>>
>>           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>
>>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>                                   Japan
>>                                  * * * * *
>>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>>                                 www.anr.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Deborah Brown
> Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org
> S. deborah.l.brown
> T. deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 

*Michel TCHONANG LINZE*

Coordinateur Général

Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile
(ACSIS)

*ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC** ! *

   - *Forum SMSI *du 13 au 17 Mai 2013 Genève Suisse
   - *SYMPOSIUM TIC AFRIQUE* du 30 juillet au 02 Août 2013 Yaoundé
   Cameroun. *«Face à l’enjeu de la Cybersécurité-Cybercriminalité et d**u
   phénomène de croissance exponentielle de la téléphonie mobile**, quelles
   solutions pour des Villes Numériques, la Protection des Droits des
   Personnes et des Entreprises ? »*

CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement
de l'Afrique)

BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN

Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49  Fax : (237) 3340-46-49

Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr

Site :  www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; *www.tic-afrique.org*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130209/135746c0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Sat Feb  9 10:25:22 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 10:25:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] Contact our respective Email
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLv0Gutt3Z8es4iu9U_SWgEA1Ju7KCXp012Ppd44-xs4_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear members of the Nominating Committee

We seem to have problems with mail contact us.
I do not understand why so disorganized and you ask us to urgently discuss
the selection criteria.
And as we do, if we can not maintain a constant flow of communication
between committee members.

I think the time to discuss the selection criteria is very short, we need
more time.

Please do not want to believe that we are only as puppets and advance
candidates are selected!

My selection criteria is that candidates should submit their resume and a
modern plan of Internet governance and its current problems and future, not
just for a certain group of countries, but to the overall total, giving
priority to countries emerging

It must engage in modernization work Caucos to make it more dynamic and
visionary
They must commit to give a message to all members of lists.igcaucus
governance, of what state are taking their mandate, what are the main
problems left and resolve

So until you fix the problems with communication with members, ask them to
contact us with our respective post and exchange views, no pressure some


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130209/1cf60935/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sun Feb 10 10:41:48 2013
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:41:48 +0500
Subject: [governance] Alarming - Software that tracks people on social media
 created by defence firm - Guardian
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtP+-ynVY9_Qp=kEgVKDWmY3PRdY90GUCVxy+kM0pDYa6g@mail.gmail.com>

This is indeed very alarming -

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/10/software-tracks-social-media-defence

Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm
Exclusive: Raytheon's Riot program mines social network data like a
'Google for spies', drawing ire from civil rights groups

A Multinational security firm has secretly developed software capable
of tracking people's movements and predicting future behaviour by
mining data from social networking websites.

A video obtained by the Guardian reveals how an "extreme-scale
analytics" system created by Raytheon, the world's fifth largest
defence contractor, can gather vast amounts of information about
people from websites including Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare.

Raytheon says it has not sold the software – named Riot, or Rapid
Information Overlay Technology – to any clients.

But the Massachusetts-based company has acknowledged the technology
was shared with US government and industry as part of a joint research
and development effort, in 2010, to help build a national security
system capable of analysing "trillions of entities" from cyberspace.

The power of Riot to harness popular websites for surveillance offers
a rare insight into controversial techniques that have attracted
interest from intelligence and national security agencies, at the same
time prompting civil liberties and online privacy concerns.



* Sharing for information purposes only.

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad

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

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun Feb 10 10:45:39 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:45:39 +0900
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
Message-ID: <CAFabd1JteHDwFcRf3pv5H5PtS-no2E0c5-+8NjKK5ejnHrekRQ@mail.gmail.com>

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/de-fund-itu/mSJ49QcV?utm_source=wh

815 have signed the petition, few more hours to go.
Didn't the New York Times write about it?  Good to see there's still no
interest even after the press boost.

Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/f05b0730/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jfcallo at ciencitec.com  Sun Feb 10 11:12:21 2013
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:12:21 -0500
Subject: [governance] Suggestions from Lima, Peru
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLv0Gutt3Z8es4iu9U_SWgEA1Ju7KCXp012Ppd44-xs4_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAYFVLv0Gutt3Z8es4iu9U_SWgEA1Ju7KCXp012Ppd44-xs4_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130210111221.11076lv7h5pvndgl@www.ciencitec.com>

English
Mr. Jose Arias, Dear Sirs:
As a member of this list, I see that there is concern for  
communication between its members, it is important to first plan how  
communication can then make public any appreciation or viewpoint.
I see with great concern as one of its members is willing to work and  
move forward.
In what can help walk nominees, are at your service, here from Lima, Peru.
Success in managing.

Spanish
Sr. Jose Arias, estimados Señores:
Como integrante de esta lista, veo que hay preocupacion para la  
comunicacion entre sus miembros, es importante que primero se  
planifique la manera de comunicacion y luego se pueda hacer publica  
cualquier apreciacion o punto de vista.
Veo con mucha preocupacion como uno de sus integrantes esta con ganas  
de trabajar y avanzar.
En lo que pueda ayudar a que los nominados caminen, estamos a sus  
ordenes, aqui desde Lima, Peru.
Exitos en la gestion.


José F. Callo Romero
CEO ciencitec.com





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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Feb 10 11:33:55 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:33:55 -0800
Subject: [governance] A CS Position Paper for WSIS +10
Message-ID: <023b01ce07ac$7a785980$6f690c80$@gmail.com>

As part of my own prep for the WSIS +10 review in a couple of weeks I've taken another look at the CS declarations http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf and the attached. Apart from some things that don't appear (not much mention of Broadband, none of wireless, nothing on Net Neutrality and so on) the documents seem to stand up quite well as the basis for a position paper for the upcoming review and more importantly for the beginning of the development of an input position for WSIS +10 in 2015.

 

I'm wondering if there might not be some value in a break out group forming to collaboratively review, discuss and then make comments and suggested updates on that documents as part of the process of CS preparing for WSIS +10 in 2015. It might be most interesting to start off with folks who were directly involved in the original document (my participation in these was almost all virtual so I'm not really very clear as to who that might be) or who have been actively engaged in work related to the document as for example, those working with Information Society Watch and then start to move out from there but of course, no one who aligns themselves with the positions presented in those documents would be excluded.

 

Perhaps those interested might contact me off-list.  Also, feel free to pass this along to anyone who won't be reached by this mass mailing. 

 

Best,

 

M

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130210/0100d62c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS-CS-summit-statement-18-12-2005-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 348038 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130210/0100d62c/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From woody at pch.net  Sun Feb 10 11:39:10 2013
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:39:10 -0800
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CAFabd1JteHDwFcRf3pv5H5PtS-no2E0c5-+8NjKK5ejnHrekRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1JteHDwFcRf3pv5H5PtS-no2E0c5-+8NjKK5ejnHrekRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9636D7C8-9831-4DC6-84FC-47B89659327C@pch.net>


On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Good to see there's still no interest 

Really, Adam?  You think it's "good" that I should be forced to make involuntary payments to an organization that uses them to oppose my interests?

Since it's not your money that we're talking about, I'm curious why you feel you have standing to make such an assertion.

                                -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 ocl at gih.com  Sun Feb 10 12:18:22 2013
From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:18:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] Alarming - Software that tracks people on social
 media created by defence firm - Guardian
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtP+-ynVY9_Qp=kEgVKDWmY3PRdY90GUCVxy+kM0pDYa6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHuaJtP+-ynVY9_Qp=kEgVKDWmY3PRdY90GUCVxy+kM0pDYa6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5117D65E.60409@gih.com>

Thanks for sharing, Fouad.

But... alarming? Social Network Analysis is not new and can be done very
easily using *free* tools that you can download on-line. You don't need
Raytheon to sell you something costing millions of dollars for that.

Here's a little concept study I did a few years ago.
http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/a-study-of-internet-rfc-authors-using-netdraw-and-yed

... and I guess, the very fact I am replying to your post now links us. :-)

Kind regards,

Olivier


On 10/02/2013 16:41, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> This is indeed very alarming -
>
> Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/10/software-tracks-social-media-defence
>
> Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm
> Exclusive: Raytheon's Riot program mines social network data like a
> 'Google for spies', drawing ire from civil rights groups
>
> A Multinational security firm has secretly developed software capable
> of tracking people's movements and predicting future behaviour by
> mining data from social networking websites.
>
> A video obtained by the Guardian reveals how an "extreme-scale
> analytics" system created by Raytheon, the world's fifth largest
> defence contractor, can gather vast amounts of information about
> people from websites including Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare.
>
> Raytheon says it has not sold the software – named Riot, or Rapid
> Information Overlay Technology – to any clients.
>
> But the Massachusetts-based company has acknowledged the technology
> was shared with US government and industry as part of a joint research
> and development effort, in 2010, to help build a national security
> system capable of analysing "trillions of entities" from cyberspace.
>
> The power of Riot to harness popular websites for surveillance offers
> a rare insight into controversial techniques that have attracted
> interest from intelligence and national security agencies, at the same
> time prompting civil liberties and online privacy concerns.
>
>
>
> * Sharing for information purposes only.
>

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


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

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Feb 10 14:28:33 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:28:33 +0000
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <9636D7C8-9831-4DC6-84FC-47B89659327C@pch.net>
References: <CAFabd1JteHDwFcRf3pv5H5PtS-no2E0c5-+8NjKK5ejnHrekRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9636D7C8-9831-4DC6-84FC-47B89659327C@pch.net>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD232EDF4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget is a rounding error.

Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries) continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of the ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion in a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.


From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:39 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Defund the ITU petition


On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp<mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
> Good to see there's still no interest

Really, Adam?  You think it's "good" that I should be forced to make involuntary payments to an organization that uses them to oppose my interests?

Since it's not your money that we're talking about, I'm curious why you feel you have standing to make such an assertion.

                                -Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130210/614130c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sun Feb 10 14:54:29 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:54:29 -0200
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
Message-ID: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>

...and let us remind ourselves that *we still need the ITU* !!

--c.a.

------------
C. A. Afonso

-------- Original message --------
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
Date: 10/02/2013  17:28  (GMT-03:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> 
Subject: RE: [governance] Defund the ITU petition 
 
Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget is a rounding error. 
 
Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries) continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of the ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion in a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  
 
 
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:39 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
 

On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> Good to see there's still no interest 

Really, Adam?  You think it's "good" that I should be forced to make involuntary payments to an organization that uses them to oppose my interests?

Since it's not your money that we're talking about, I'm curious why you feel you have standing to make such an assertion.

                                -Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130210/6c02d727/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sun Feb 10 15:12:50 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:12:50 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Removed from nomcom
In-Reply-To: <CAE1T72RxqAZONiyc=Vv=ps=9gNnLq9tmMQJGWaTo8zoOu1A_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1U3fVu-0000M8-S6@igcaucus.org>
	<CAE1T72RxqAZONiyc=Vv=ps=9gNnLq9tmMQJGWaTo8zoOu1A_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiC7Cj3=5aEz_t5oo=HqyfBZ11uYPdtUfDOCVrCCG+N9dw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Devon,

You still are subscribed to the Governance Mailing list but we had to
recently unsubscribe previous members of NomCom to allow for the newly
constituted NomCom to use the NomCom mailing list for their discussions.

Warm Regards,
Sala

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Devon Blake <devonrb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Can someone assist me with the email below, i dont understand it.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <nomcom-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Date: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:24 PM
> Subject: Removed from nomcom
> To: devonrb at gmail.com
>
>
> Your address (devonrb at gmail.com) has been removed from list
> nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org, likely due to excessive
> non-delivery reports for your address.
>
> You can subscribe again:
> mailto:sympa at lists.igcaucus.org?subject=sub%20nomcom
>
>
>
> --
> Devon Blake
> Special Projects Director
> Earthwise Solutions Limited
> 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!*
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/dc07501f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Sun Feb 10 16:38:48 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:38:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> ...and let us remind ourselves that *we still need the ITU* !!
>
> --c.a.
>
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
>
> - - -

Hi,

The USG plays this defunding game with UNESCO when it does not like a vote
of the UNESCO members. This is presently the case because Palestine was
admitted as member in 2011. As was predictable UNESCO had to reduce its
budget, partly in reducing staff, partly in cutting funds for development
projects, that is reducing its global activities. Victims are primarily
developing countries. Is the USG expecting that they will vote in US favour
on the next occasion ?

When developing countries need funding, where could they get some ? China
or Saudi Arabia are more than willing to "help", in return for some
political and commercial deals.

Anyway, the defund-the-ITU petition collected hardly 3% of the 25000
signatures needed for taking off. A non event by world standard, but a
success by US lobbies standards. They got unending publications references
in Google, quoting over and again the petition propaganda. Of course the
flop does not matter, the goal was massively funded noise.

Btw, one may appreciate Google's algorithm relevance, which makes the
petition (and Google's own position) an overwhelming noise, while non
aligned viewpoints make a tiny signal with only two references:

http://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/demystifying-itus-role-internet-governance/

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-beat-it-some-more/

Louis
- - -

>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Date: 10/02/2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00)
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
>
>  Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects
> tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget
> is a rounding error. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the
> hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign
> is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries)
> continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a
> legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a
> calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of the
> ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically
> reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion in
> a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about
> geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  ****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130210/e5650bb5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kovenronald at aol.com  Sun Feb 10 17:37:00 2013
From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:37:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com> <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8CFD5F64685BB19-1970-3D3DC@webmail-m152.sysops.aol.com>

This analysis is inaccurate.  The United States government did not willingly defund UNESCO. The USG had no real choice since there is a longstanding, very explicit law that any international body that recognizes Palestine as a state before there a peace treaty with Israel must be defunded. The USG tried to get a waiver to the law for UNESCO, but the Florida Cuban-American Republican Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee refused to consider it. There is a new Chairman of the Committee in the incoming, newly elected Congress who may be more amenable. The Obama Administration has included US dues to UNESCO in its budget with a notation indicating that it favors approval of the appropriation.


Rony Koven



-----Original Message-----
From: Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>
To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 10:40 pm
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:


...and let us remind ourselves that *we still need the ITU* !!


--c.a.



------------
C. A. Afonso

 



- - -

Hi,

The USG plays this defunding game with UNESCO when it does not like a vote of the UNESCO members. This is presently the case because Palestine was admitted as member in 2011. As was predictable UNESCO had to reduce its budget, partly in reducing staff, partly in cutting funds for development projects, that is reducing its global activities. Victims are primarily developing countries. Is the USG expecting that they will vote in US favour on the next occasion ?

When developing countries need funding, where could they get some ? China or Saudi Arabia are more than willing to "help", in return for some political and commercial deals.

Anyway, the defund-the-ITU petition collected hardly 3% of the 25000 signatures needed for taking off. A non event by world standard, but a success by US lobbies standards. They got unending publications references in Google, quoting over and again the petition propaganda. Of course the flop does not matter, the goal was massively funded noise.

Btw, one may appreciate Google's algorithm relevance, which makes the petition (and Google's own position) an overwhelming noise, while non aligned viewpoints make a tiny signal with only two references:

http://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/demystifying-itus-role-internet-governance/

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-beat-it-some-more/

Louis
- - -





-------- Original message --------
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
Date: 10/02/2013  17:28  (GMT-03:00) 
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> 
Subject: RE: [governance] Defund the ITU petition 
 

Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget is a rounding error.
 
Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries) continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of the ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion in a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  
 





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

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

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

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130210/2f2c388c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sun Feb 10 18:18:47 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:18:47 -0500
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD232EDF4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CAFabd1JteHDwFcRf3pv5H5PtS-no2E0c5-+8NjKK5ejnHrekRQ@mail.gmail.com> <9636D7C8-9831-4DC6-84FC-47B89659327C@pch.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD232EDF4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <9AA55FF8-FEBF-4322-A453-CBA962F2217A@acm.org>

Hi,

As a US taxpayer who did not sign the petition, I mostly agree.

I am not quite as comfortable with what the ITU-T is doing as Milton is. And after the IEG meeting my nerves are a bit more on edge about the member states' plans for the WTPF and  Plenipot-14 than they were last week, but still I don't think that boycotting the ITU is the way to go.  I am coming to the view that more participation as opposed to less is the way to go.  We can complain all we want about the member states' not understanding what the Internet is about.  But we can only educate them by participating.

I remind Civil society organizations of the opportunity to take the ITU up on its offer of sector membership with a fee waiver.

Speaking of the WTPF, there may be a few weeks window in which civil society can comment on the final draft of the conference document.  Will keep this group informed of any opportunities as they present themselves.

avri

On 10 Feb 2013, at 14:28, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget is a rounding error.
>  
> Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries) continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of the ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion in a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  
>  
>  
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:39 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
>  
> 
> On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> > Good to see there's still no interest 
> 
> Really, Adam?  You think it's "good" that I should be forced to make involuntary payments to an organization that uses them to oppose my interests?
> 
> Since it's not your money that we're talking about, I'm curious why you feel you have standing to make such an assertion.
> 
>                                 -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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 10 18:52:20 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:52:20 -0500
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com> <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhqF48G-h85qpFiYuyLHFEa1cFqE7WbuKpvD7O6u9VMDg@mail.gmail.com>

As Ronny says, it is inaccurate, AFAIK, there was no "massively funded
noise" nor was there any attempts by Google to game their algorythm.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

-- 
Cheers,

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

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Feb 10 20:45:16 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:15:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxhqF48G-h85qpFiYuyLHFEa1cFqE7WbuKpvD7O6u9VMDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>
 <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhqF48G-h85qpFiYuyLHFEa1cFqE7WbuKpvD7O6u9VMDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13cc6ed5aa9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Not that I saw either. Specific examples would be great, for all the 
hyperbole so far.

As long as the Palestine movement is dominated by terrorism (suicide 
bombs, firing rockets into civilian areas) and a violent denial of the 
right of Israel to exist rather than more peaceful means of protest, I 
don't see that part of the situation changing. So while I do hope 
unesco gets its funding back, they are suffering the consequences of a 
not particularly wise action.

--srs (htc one x)



On 11 February 2013 5:22:20 AM McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> As Ronny says, it is inaccurate, AFAIK, there was no "massively funded
> noise" nor was there any attempts by Google to game their algorythm.
>
> Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>



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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Feb 10 20:51:54 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:21:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD232EDF4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CAFabd1JteHDwFcRf3pv5H5PtS-no2E0c5-+8NjKK5ejnHrekRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9636D7C8-9831-4DC6-84FC-47B89659327C@pch.net>
 <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD232EDF4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <13cc6f371cd.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

I agree there. The more reasonable alternative is for the usa to 
participate and group together with other countries to elect a sg that 
doesn't allow this scope creep in ITU's agenda and refocuses it on its 
core roles of development and standardization

--srs (htc one x)



On 11 February 2013 12:58:33 AM Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects 
> tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU 
> budget is a rounding error.
>
> Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the 
> hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU 
> campaign is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other 
> countries) continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN 
> agencies) is a legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I 
> would like to see a calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as 
> the future role of the ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no 
> role” or “a dramatically reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s 
> carry out the discussion in a less polarized way, and one that pays 
> attention to basic facts about geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.
>
>
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:39 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
>
>
> On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Adam Peake 
> <ajp at glocom.ac.jp<mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>> wrote:
> > Good to see there's still no interest
>
> Really, Adam?  You think it's "good" that I should be forced to make 
> involuntary payments to an organization that uses them to oppose my interests?
>
> Since it's not your money that we're talking about, I'm curious why you 
> feel you have standing to make such an assertion.
>
>                                 -Bill
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/e086b1a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Mon Feb 11 00:49:10 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:49:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <13cc6ed5aa9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>
 <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhqF48G-h85qpFiYuyLHFEa1cFqE7WbuKpvD7O6u9VMDg@mail.gmail.com> <13cc6ed5aa9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYrKGA7AMrjYh_g0SHJ0+vVx1knOpE2kCK1tM0HjxFBWAg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> Not that I saw either. Specific examples would be great, for all the
> hyperbole so far.
>
> As long as the Palestine movement is dominated by terrorism (suicide
> bombs, firing rockets into civilian areas) and a violent denial of the
> right of Israel to exist rather than more peaceful means of protest, I
> don't see that part of the situation changing. So while I do hope unesco
> gets its funding back, they are suffering the consequences of a not
> particularly wise action.
>
> --srs (htc one x)
> - - -
>

I don't think it's appropriate to raise the Israel/Palestine debate on this
list. One side views are well known and don't improve anything.

Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/a977ea8b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb 11 01:06:15 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 22:06:15 -0800
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYrKGA7AMrjYh_g0SHJ0+vVx1knOpE2kCK1tM0HjxFBWAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>
 <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhqF48G-h85qpFiYuyLHFEa1cFqE7WbuKpvD7O6u9VMDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <13cc6ed5aa9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <CA+EjHYrKGA7AMrjYh_g0SHJ0+vVx1knOpE2kCK1tM0HjxFBWAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130211060615.GA16187@hserus.net>

Louis Pouzin (well) [11/02/13 06:49 +0100]:
>
>I don't think it's appropriate to raise the Israel/Palestine debate on this
>list. One side views are well known and don't improve anything.
>

Equally, I don't think your posts to the list putting the US defunding of
Unesco in the context of this petition, and claiming a conspiracy between
the organizers of the petition, google and maybe also the USG, as being
very appropriate, or even very factual for that matter.

I accept that the israel palestine issue is off topic for this list. So
please help us all by not dragging it into list conversation in the first
place.  Thank you.

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Feb 11 05:38:37 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:38:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Removed from nomcom
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC7Cj3=5aEz_t5oo=HqyfBZ11uYPdtUfDOCVrCCG+N9dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1U3fVu-0000M8-S6@igcaucus.org>
	<CAE1T72RxqAZONiyc=Vv=ps=9gNnLq9tmMQJGWaTo8zoOu1A_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiC7Cj3=5aEz_t5oo=HqyfBZ11uYPdtUfDOCVrCCG+N9dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130211113837.20382d6e@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Just to try to further increase clarity about this a little: Devon was
on the recent NomCom for MAG nominations, and he is again on the
current NomCom for the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation.

The log of Sympa (the mailing list software) shows that at 07 Feb 2013
23:24:38 (server time, which is roughly EST), the members of the old
NomCom were removed from the nomcom mailing list, and a few seconds
later, at 23:24:57, the members of the new NomCom were added to that
mailing list.

In both cases, that included Devon's email address, resulting in the
very confusing unsubscription notice that Devon forwarded below.

The current status is that precisely the current NomCom members are on
the nomcom mailing list, and no-one else is subscribed - just like it
should be.

Greetings,
Norbert



Am Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:12:50 +1200
schrieb "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro"
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:

> Dear Devon,
> 
> You still are subscribed to the Governance Mailing list but we had to
> recently unsubscribe previous members of NomCom to allow for the newly
> constituted NomCom to use the NomCom mailing list for their
> discussions.
> 
> Warm Regards,
> Sala
> 
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Devon Blake <devonrb at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Can someone assist me with the email below, i dont understand it.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: <nomcom-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
> > Date: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:24 PM
> > Subject: Removed from nomcom
> > To: devonrb at gmail.com
> >
> >
> > Your address (devonrb at gmail.com) has been removed from list
> > nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org, likely due to excessive
> > non-delivery reports for your address.
> >
> > You can subscribe again:
> > mailto:sympa at lists.igcaucus.org?subject=sub%20nomcom
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Devon Blake
> > Special Projects Director
> > Earthwise Solutions Limited
> > 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!*
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> 
> 


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

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Feb 11 05:57:01 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:57:01 -0200
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com> <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5118CE7D.6010706@cafonso.ca>

Louis, you are right (sadly). The USA started boycotting Unesco in 1984 
(with the argument that Unesco did not adhere to US foreign policy) and 
did so for about 20 years. In 2011 they found another argument to stop 
supporting Unesco -- the recognition of Palestine as a Unesco member -- 
on the grounds that allegiance to Israel is determinant to US foreign 
policy.

Curiously, though, they did not ask anyone else for support or relied on 
a public mobilization -- just an executive order was enough, both in '84 
and in 2011.

There is in my view no chance of them boycotting the ITU -- like Israel 
in the case of Palestine, this decision will be determined by the 
leverage of US telecom industry, not public petitions. Who will feed 
ITU-T, ITU-R etc, if there is a relevant boycott afer all?

This standards structure, working in partnership with the likes of IEEE, 
IETF and others, is BTW crucial for the future of spectrum allocation; 
no other international body exists with the same capability. My view is 
that as the Internet advances, ITU will be left with the only role of 
coordination international spectrum allocation policy.

BTW, as a Brazilian gov representative says, those who signed the ITRs 
will not necessarily follow its determinations (Brazil included), and 
those who did not sign might follow several of its recommendations. So 
there would be really no relevant motive for all this fuss around 
defunding ITU.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 02/10/2013 07:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>> ...and let us remind ourselves that *we still need the ITU* !!
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> ------------
>> C. A. Afonso
>>
>> - - -
>
> Hi,
>
> The USG plays this defunding game with UNESCO when it does not like a vote
> of the UNESCO members. This is presently the case because Palestine was
> admitted as member in 2011. As was predictable UNESCO had to reduce its
> budget, partly in reducing staff, partly in cutting funds for development
> projects, that is reducing its global activities. Victims are primarily
> developing countries. Is the USG expecting that they will vote in US favour
> on the next occasion ?
>
> When developing countries need funding, where could they get some ? China
> or Saudi Arabia are more than willing to "help", in return for some
> political and commercial deals.
>
> Anyway, the defund-the-ITU petition collected hardly 3% of the 25000
> signatures needed for taking off. A non event by world standard, but a
> success by US lobbies standards. They got unending publications references
> in Google, quoting over and again the petition propaganda. Of course the
> flop does not matter, the goal was massively funded noise.
>
> Btw, one may appreciate Google's algorithm relevance, which makes the
> petition (and Google's own position) an overwhelming noise, while non
> aligned viewpoints make a tiny signal with only two references:
>
> http://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/demystifying-itus-role-internet-governance/
>
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-beat-it-some-more/
>
> Louis
> - - -
>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>> Date: 10/02/2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00)
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
>> Subject: RE: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
>>
>>   Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects
>> tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget
>> is a rounding error. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the
>> hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign
>> is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries)
>> continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a
>> legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a
>> calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of the
>> ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically
>> reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion in
>> a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about
>> geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>>
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Mon Feb 11 06:09:09 2013
From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:09:09 +0000
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <5118CE7D.6010706@cafonso.ca>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>
	<CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5118CE7D.6010706@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CAJhHpNvj8=q7Y__EvzXv+dzL-Ck=Xd71=0-r-u7pNCjW_AmHKg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

All this talk about UNESCO and the US government reminds me of a night in
Dakar, Senegal, in 2003.

I was there for a conference of African intellectuals and on our way by bus
to a conference event called dialog among generations, I was lucky enough
to sit, by pure accident, next to Dr. Amadou Mahktar Mbow, former Director
General of UNESCO.  I recall we had a wonderful conversation, mainly on
UNESCO's efforts regarding the struggle for the then New International
Information Order (remember that one?), and the boycott of the organization
by the US.  I remember asking him how it feels now that most of his
detractors and critics were either long dead or out of office. I leave it
to your imagination to guess his reply to my question.

Katim


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Louis, you are right (sadly). The USA started boycotting Unesco in 1984
> (with the argument that Unesco did not adhere to US foreign policy) and did
> so for about 20 years. In 2011 they found another argument to stop
> supporting Unesco -- the recognition of Palestine as a Unesco member -- on
> the grounds that allegiance to Israel is determinant to US foreign policy.
>
> Curiously, though, they did not ask anyone else for support or relied on a
> public mobilization -- just an executive order was enough, both in '84 and
> in 2011.
>
> There is in my view no chance of them boycotting the ITU -- like Israel in
> the case of Palestine, this decision will be determined by the leverage of
> US telecom industry, not public petitions. Who will feed ITU-T, ITU-R etc,
> if there is a relevant boycott afer all?
>
> This standards structure, working in partnership with the likes of IEEE,
> IETF and others, is BTW crucial for the future of spectrum allocation; no
> other international body exists with the same capability. My view is that
> as the Internet advances, ITU will be left with the only role of
> coordination international spectrum allocation policy.
>
> BTW, as a Brazilian gov representative says, those who signed the ITRs
> will not necessarily follow its determinations (Brazil included), and those
> who did not sign might follow several of its recommendations. So there
> would be really no relevant motive for all this fuss around defunding ITU.
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
>
> On 02/10/2013 07:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>
>>  ...and let us remind ourselves that *we still need the ITU* !!
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> ------------
>>> C. A. Afonso
>>>
>>> - - -
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The USG plays this defunding game with UNESCO when it does not like a vote
>> of the UNESCO members. This is presently the case because Palestine was
>> admitted as member in 2011. As was predictable UNESCO had to reduce its
>> budget, partly in reducing staff, partly in cutting funds for development
>> projects, that is reducing its global activities. Victims are primarily
>> developing countries. Is the USG expecting that they will vote in US
>> favour
>> on the next occasion ?
>>
>> When developing countries need funding, where could they get some ? China
>> or Saudi Arabia are more than willing to "help", in return for some
>> political and commercial deals.
>>
>> Anyway, the defund-the-ITU petition collected hardly 3% of the 25000
>> signatures needed for taking off. A non event by world standard, but a
>> success by US lobbies standards. They got unending publications references
>> in Google, quoting over and again the petition propaganda. Of course the
>> flop does not matter, the goal was massively funded noise.
>>
>> Btw, one may appreciate Google's algorithm relevance, which makes the
>> petition (and Google's own position) an overwhelming noise, while non
>> aligned viewpoints make a tiny signal with only two references:
>>
>> http://www.abiresearch.com/**blogs/demystifying-itus-role-**
>> internet-governance/<http://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/demystifying-itus-role-internet-governance/>
>>
>> http://www.internetgovernance.**org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-**
>> dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-**beat-it-some-more/<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-beat-it-some-more/>
>>
>> Louis
>> - - -
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>>> Date: 10/02/2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00)
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,**Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
>>> Subject: RE: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
>>>
>>>   Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects
>>> tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget
>>> is a rounding error. ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>>
>>> Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the
>>> hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign
>>> is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries)
>>> continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a
>>> legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a
>>> calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of
>>> the
>>> ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically
>>> reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion
>>> in
>>> a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about
>>> geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/c1b020b7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Feb 11 07:27:58 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:27:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYrKGA7AMrjYh_g0SHJ0+vVx1knOpE2kCK1tM0HjxFBWAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>
 <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhqF48G-h85qpFiYuyLHFEa1cFqE7WbuKpvD7O6u9VMDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <13cc6ed5aa9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CA+EjHYrKGA7AMrjYh_g0SHJ0+vVx1knOpE2kCK1tM0HjxFBWAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhJmPDg_VqPk0HrxhEqxEPq+D6GBi7N6ARSeevRpjO40Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>

<SNIP>

>
>
> I don't think it's appropriate to raise the Israel/Palestine debate on this
> list. One side views are well known and don't improve anything.

hmmmm, you were the one who brought it up!

-- 
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 Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at  Mon Feb 11 07:36:45 2013
From: Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at (Philipp Mirtl)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:36:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
Message-ID: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local>

Dear list members,

 

For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently published commentary on WCIT-12: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.

 

The abstract reads as follows:

 

"The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February 1945 meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long Internet Cold War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries. The battles over Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just about competing visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness and the other security. They are also about two different visions of political power - one in which that power is increasingly distributed and includes non-state actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the Yalta Conference, Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first, they allowed naive statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual realities on the ground. Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in permitting ambiguous definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been repeated at WCIT."

 

Best regards,

 

 

Philipp Mirtl

 

Fellow / Adviser

Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip)

Austrian Institute for International Affairs

Berggasse 7

A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA

Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29

Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10

E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at <mailto:philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at> 

Website: www.oiip.ac.at <http://www.oiip.ac.at/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/ffd4ff99/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Mon Feb 11 10:07:19 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:07:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CAJhHpNvj8=q7Y__EvzXv+dzL-Ck=Xd71=0-r-u7pNCjW_AmHKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com> <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com> <5118CE7D.6010706@cafonso.ca> <CAJhHpNvj8=q7Y__EvzXv+dzL-Ck=Xd71=0-r-u7pNCjW_AmHKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7CB139E1-34B9-4E4C-9CBA-1F597454446C@uzh.ch>

Hi Katim

Did you happen to ask him about how he lost his bid for reelection when the Soviet bloc withdrew support due to fears that other countries would walk?  Or about the GAO report http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/142303.pdf  detailing his astonishing mismanagement of UNESCO's budget and staff?  According to many reports, this included spending 80% of the budget in Paris rather than around the world, and having the top two floors of the building converted into a rent free penthouse for himself. Did you ask how any of these actions helped promote media development or helped the poor in Africa, or anywhere else?  He turned UNESCO into an irresistible target for Reagan Administration retribution over the NWICO campaign.  While I certainly didn't support the US walking out and taking 25% of the budget with it, I wouldn't paint Mbow as either a martyr or an innocent bystander, either.  Sometimes Secretary Generals really do matter, including terrible ones.  M'Bow did substantial damage to the organization and its position in the international system that took a long time to undue.  

The more recent US pullout is of course an entirely different matter.  Nobody in the Obama Administration is contending that the current SG is doing a bad job or that the organization is off the rails.  Their hands were tied by the Congress, and they're trying to get them free.  The current budget proposal restores the FY 2013 UNESCO assessment and the outstanding balance of the FY 2012 assessment.  As you can imagine, the US right is up in arms…

Bill



On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Katim S. Touray <kstouray at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>  
> All this talk about UNESCO and the US government reminds me of a night in Dakar, Senegal, in 2003.
>  
> I was there for a conference of African intellectuals and on our way by bus to a conference event called dialog among generations, I was lucky enough to sit, by pure accident, next to Dr. Amadou Mahktar Mbow, former Director General of UNESCO.  I recall we had a wonderful conversation, mainly on UNESCO's efforts regarding the struggle for the then New International Information Order (remember that one?), and the boycott of the organization by the US.  I remember asking him how it feels now that most of his detractors and critics were either long dead or out of office. I leave it to your imagination to guess his reply to my question.
>  
> Katim
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> Louis, you are right (sadly). The USA started boycotting Unesco in 1984 (with the argument that Unesco did not adhere to US foreign policy) and did so for about 20 years. In 2011 they found another argument to stop supporting Unesco -- the recognition of Palestine as a Unesco member -- on the grounds that allegiance to Israel is determinant to US foreign policy.
> 
> Curiously, though, they did not ask anyone else for support or relied on a public mobilization -- just an executive order was enough, both in '84 and in 2011.
> 
> There is in my view no chance of them boycotting the ITU -- like Israel in the case of Palestine, this decision will be determined by the leverage of US telecom industry, not public petitions. Who will feed ITU-T, ITU-R etc, if there is a relevant boycott afer all?
> 
> This standards structure, working in partnership with the likes of IEEE, IETF and others, is BTW crucial for the future of spectrum allocation; no other international body exists with the same capability. My view is that as the Internet advances, ITU will be left with the only role of coordination international spectrum allocation policy.
> 
> BTW, as a Brazilian gov representative says, those who signed the ITRs will not necessarily follow its determinations (Brazil included), and those who did not sign might follow several of its recommendations. So there would be really no relevant motive for all this fuss around defunding ITU.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> 
> On 02/10/2013 07:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> 
> ...and let us remind ourselves that *we still need the ITU* !!
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> ------------
> C. A. Afonso
> 
> - - -
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The USG plays this defunding game with UNESCO when it does not like a vote
> of the UNESCO members. This is presently the case because Palestine was
> admitted as member in 2011. As was predictable UNESCO had to reduce its
> budget, partly in reducing staff, partly in cutting funds for development
> projects, that is reducing its global activities. Victims are primarily
> developing countries. Is the USG expecting that they will vote in US favour
> on the next occasion ?
> 
> When developing countries need funding, where could they get some ? China
> or Saudi Arabia are more than willing to "help", in return for some
> political and commercial deals.
> 
> Anyway, the defund-the-ITU petition collected hardly 3% of the 25000
> signatures needed for taking off. A non event by world standard, but a
> success by US lobbies standards. They got unending publications references
> in Google, quoting over and again the petition propaganda. Of course the
> flop does not matter, the goal was massively funded noise.
> 
> Btw, one may appreciate Google's algorithm relevance, which makes the
> petition (and Google's own position) an overwhelming noise, while non
> aligned viewpoints make a tiny signal with only two references:
> 
> http://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/demystifying-itus-role-internet-governance/
> 
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-beat-it-some-more/
> 
> Louis
> - - -
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> Date: 10/02/2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00)
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
> 
>   Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects
> tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget
> is a rounding error. ****
> 
> ** **
> 
> 
> Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the
> hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign
> is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries)
> continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a
> legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a
> calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of the
> ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically
> reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion in
> a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about
> geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  ****
> 
> ** **
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/8abef219/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb 11 10:13:12 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:43:12 +0530
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <7CB139E1-34B9-4E4C-9CBA-1F597454446C@uzh.ch>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com> <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com> <5118CE7D.6010706@cafonso.ca> <CAJhHpNvj8=q7Y__EvzXv+dzL-Ck=Xd71=0-r-u7pNCjW_AmHKg@mail.gmail.com> <7CB139E1-34B9-4E4C-9CBA-1F597454446C@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CE8CD636-AB50-4D4B-8EFF-8D091F25AE95@hserus.net>

With enough money salted away, and beyond the jurisdiction of anyone inclined to prosecute, I suppose that one  cares little or nothing about detractors, or whether they are alive, dead or anything else.

--srs (iPad)

On 11-Feb-2013, at 20:37, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Katim
> 
> Did you happen to ask him about how he lost his bid for reelection when the Soviet bloc withdrew support due to fears that other countries would walk?  Or about the GAO report http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/142303.pdf  detailing his astonishing mismanagement of UNESCO's budget and staff?  According to many reports, this included spending 80% of the budget in Paris rather than around the world, and having the top two floors of the building converted into a rent free penthouse for himself. Did you ask how any of these actions helped promote media development or helped the poor in Africa, or anywhere else?  He turned UNESCO into an irresistible target for Reagan Administration retribution over the NWICO campaign.  While I certainly didn't support the US walking out and taking 25% of the budget with it, I wouldn't paint Mbow as either a martyr or an innocent bystander, either.  Sometimes Secretary Generals really do matter, including terrible ones.  M'Bow did substantial damage to the organization and its position in the international system that took a long time to undue.  
> 
> The more recent US pullout is of course an entirely different matter.  Nobody in the Obama Administration is contending that the current SG is doing a bad job or that the organization is off the rails.  Their hands were tied by the Congress, and they're trying to get them free.  The current budget proposal restores the FY 2013 UNESCO assessment and the outstanding balance of the FY 2012 assessment.  As you can imagine, the US right is up in arms…
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Katim S. Touray <kstouray at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>>  
>> All this talk about UNESCO and the US government reminds me of a night in Dakar, Senegal, in 2003.
>>  
>> I was there for a conference of African intellectuals and on our way by bus to a conference event called dialog among generations, I was lucky enough to sit, by pure accident, next to Dr. Amadou Mahktar Mbow, former Director General of UNESCO.  I recall we had a wonderful conversation, mainly on UNESCO's efforts regarding the struggle for the then New International Information Order (remember that one?), and the boycott of the organization by the US.  I remember asking him how it feels now that most of his detractors and critics were either long dead or out of office. I leave it to your imagination to guess his reply to my question.
>>  
>> Katim
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>> Louis, you are right (sadly). The USA started boycotting Unesco in 1984 (with the argument that Unesco did not adhere to US foreign policy) and did so for about 20 years. In 2011 they found another argument to stop supporting Unesco -- the recognition of Palestine as a Unesco member -- on the grounds that allegiance to Israel is determinant to US foreign policy.
>>> 
>>> Curiously, though, they did not ask anyone else for support or relied on a public mobilization -- just an executive order was enough, both in '84 and in 2011.
>>> 
>>> There is in my view no chance of them boycotting the ITU -- like Israel in the case of Palestine, this decision will be determined by the leverage of US telecom industry, not public petitions. Who will feed ITU-T, ITU-R etc, if there is a relevant boycott afer all?
>>> 
>>> This standards structure, working in partnership with the likes of IEEE, IETF and others, is BTW crucial for the future of spectrum allocation; no other international body exists with the same capability. My view is that as the Internet advances, ITU will be left with the only role of coordination international spectrum allocation policy.
>>> 
>>> BTW, as a Brazilian gov representative says, those who signed the ITRs will not necessarily follow its determinations (Brazil included), and those who did not sign might follow several of its recommendations. So there would be really no relevant motive for all this fuss around defunding ITU.
>>> 
>>> frt rgds
>>> 
>>> --c.a.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 02/10/2013 07:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> ...and let us remind ourselves that *we still need the ITU* !!
>>>>> 
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ------------
>>>>> C. A. Afonso
>>>>> 
>>>>> - - -
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> The USG plays this defunding game with UNESCO when it does not like a vote
>>>> of the UNESCO members. This is presently the case because Palestine was
>>>> admitted as member in 2011. As was predictable UNESCO had to reduce its
>>>> budget, partly in reducing staff, partly in cutting funds for development
>>>> projects, that is reducing its global activities. Victims are primarily
>>>> developing countries. Is the USG expecting that they will vote in US favour
>>>> on the next occasion ?
>>>> 
>>>> When developing countries need funding, where could they get some ? China
>>>> or Saudi Arabia are more than willing to "help", in return for some
>>>> political and commercial deals.
>>>> 
>>>> Anyway, the defund-the-ITU petition collected hardly 3% of the 25000
>>>> signatures needed for taking off. A non event by world standard, but a
>>>> success by US lobbies standards. They got unending publications references
>>>> in Google, quoting over and again the petition propaganda. Of course the
>>>> flop does not matter, the goal was massively funded noise.
>>>> 
>>>> Btw, one may appreciate Google's algorithm relevance, which makes the
>>>> petition (and Google's own position) an overwhelming noise, while non
>>>> aligned viewpoints make a tiny signal with only two references:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/demystifying-itus-role-internet-governance/
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-beat-it-some-more/
>>>> 
>>>> Louis
>>>> - - -
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>>>>> Date: 10/02/2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00)
>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
>>>>> Subject: RE: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects
>>>>> tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget
>>>>> is a rounding error. ****
>>>>> 
>>>>> ** **
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the
>>>>> hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign
>>>>> is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries)
>>>>> continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a
>>>>> legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a
>>>>> calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of the
>>>>> ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically
>>>>> reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion in
>>>>> a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about
>>>>> geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  ****
>>>>> 
>>>>> ** **
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/d22e0df7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Mon Feb 11 10:21:01 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:21:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
In-Reply-To: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local>
References: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Philipp,

Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend is
indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the creeping
cyberwar ?

Best, Louis
- - -

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at>wrote:

> Dear list members,****
>
> ** **
>
> For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently
> published *commentary on WCIT-12*: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> The abstract reads as follows:****
>
> ** **
>
> “The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International
> Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February
> 1945 meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long
> Internet Cold War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries.
> The battles over Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just
> about competing visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness
> and the other security. They are also about two different visions of
> political power – one in which that power is increasingly distributed and
> includes non-state actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the
> Yalta Conference, Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first,
> they allowed naive statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual
> realities on the ground. Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in
> permitting ambiguous definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been
> repeated at WCIT.”****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Philipp Mirtl****
>
> ** **
>
> Fellow / Adviser****
>
> Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip)****
>
> Austrian Institute for International Affairs****
>
> Berggasse 7****
>
> A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA****
>
> Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29****
>
> Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10****
>
> E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at****
>
> Website: www.oiip.ac.at****
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/1c6bba0e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at  Mon Feb 11 10:41:16 2013
From: Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at (Philipp Mirtl)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:41:16 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8F9@srvsbs01.OIIP.local>

Dear Louis,

 

Thanks for your comment. Please note that the commentary was written by Alexander Klimburg, who I am working together with - not myself. Alex is not member to this list which is why he asked me to forward you the following:

 

"Depends what you mean by "creeping cyberwar". If you mean the often-noted "militarisation of cyberspace" that is only one trend - and in some cases it is simply really part of "de-spooking of cyberwar" (i.e. making it more, rather than less, visible). The vast majority cyberconflict is invisible to those without the necessary technical or governmental insight."

 

For more info, I also send you two additional links on that issue:

 

-          Alexander Klimburg (2011): "Mobilising Cyber Power", Survival, 53:1, 41-60 (via: http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/coursereading2011/Klimcyber.pdf)

-          Alexander Klimburg (Ed.) (2012), National Cyber Security Framework Manual, NATO CCD COE Publication (via: http://www.ccdcoe.org/369.html)

 

Warm regards,

 

Philipp

 

 

Von: pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Louis Pouzin (well)
Gesendet: Montag, 11. Februar 2013 16:21
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Philipp Mirtl
Betreff: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"

 

Hi Philipp,

Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend is indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the creeping cyberwar ?

Best, Louis
- - -

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at> wrote:

Dear list members,

 

For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently published commentary on WCIT-12: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.

 

The abstract reads as follows:

 

"The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February 1945 meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long Internet Cold War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries. The battles over Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just about competing visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness and the other security. They are also about two different visions of political power - one in which that power is increasingly distributed and includes non-state actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the Yalta Conference, Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first, they allowed naive statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual realities on the ground. Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in permitting ambiguous definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been repeated at WCIT."

 

Best regards,

 

 

Philipp Mirtl

 

Fellow / Adviser

Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip)

Austrian Institute for International Affairs

Berggasse 7

A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA

Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29 <tel:%2B43-%280%291-581%2011%2006-29> 

Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10 <tel:%2B43-%281%291-581%2011%2006-10> 

E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at

Website: www.oiip.ac.at <http://www.oiip.ac.at/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/0dc5259a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Feb 11 11:43:08 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:43:08 -0800
Subject: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
In-Reply-To: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8F9@srvsbs01.OIIP.local>
References: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com> <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8F9@srvsbs01.OIIP.local>
Message-ID: <067a01ce0876$e07af240$a170d6c0$@gmail.com>

To carry forward this Cold War analogy I'm wondering whether the appropriate
position for civil society should rather be one of "non-alignment"; that is,
a position which recognizes a degree of validity in both sets of arguments
but chooses to put these in the broader and more univeral context of the
development of the Internet as a global public good, operating in support of
the global public interest where there is a universal acceptance of free
expression, human rights, and a fair distribution of economic benefits among
other rights and principles.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Mirtl
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:41 AM
To: Louis Pouzin (well); governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: AW: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"

 

Dear Louis,

 

Thanks for your comment. Please note that the commentary was written by
Alexander Klimburg, who I am working together with – not myself. Alex is not
member to this list which is why he asked me to forward you the following:

 

“Depends what you mean by “creeping cyberwar”. If you mean the often-noted
“militarisation of cyberspace” that is only one trend – and in some cases it
is simply really part of “de-spooking of cyberwar” (i.e. making it more,
rather than less, visible). The vast majority cyberconflict is invisible to
those without the necessary technical or governmental insight.“

 

For more info, I also send you two additional links on that issue:

 

-          Alexander Klimburg (2011): “Mobilising Cyber Power”, Survival,
53:1, 41-60 (via:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/coursereading2011/Klimcyber.pdf)

-          Alexander Klimburg (Ed.) (2012), National Cyber Security
Framework Manual, NATO CCD COE Publication (via:
http://www.ccdcoe.org/369.html)

 

Warm regards,

 

Philipp

 

 

Von: pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Louis Pouzin
(well)
Gesendet: Montag, 11. Februar 2013 16:21
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Philipp Mirtl
Betreff: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"

 

Hi Philipp,

Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend is
indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the creeping
cyberwar ?

Best, Louis
- - -

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at>
wrote:

Dear list members,

 

For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently published
commentary on WCIT-12: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.

 

The abstract reads as follows:

 

“The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International
Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February 1945
meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long Internet Cold
War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries. The battles over
Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just about competing
visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness and the other
security. They are also about two different visions of political power – one
in which that power is increasingly distributed and includes non-state
actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the Yalta Conference,
Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first, they allowed naive
statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual realities on the ground.
Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in permitting ambiguous
definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been repeated at WCIT.”

 

Best regards,

 

 

Philipp Mirtl

 

Fellow / Adviser

Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip)

Austrian Institute for International Affairs

Berggasse 7

A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA

Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29 <tel:%2B43-%280%291-581%2011%2006-29> 

Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10 <tel:%2B43-%281%291-581%2011%2006-10> 

E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at

Website: www.oiip.ac.at <http://www.oiip.ac.at/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/4f38de91/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Mon Feb 11 12:47:15 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:47:15 -0500
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <5118CE7D.6010706@cafonso.ca>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com> <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com> <5118CE7D.6010706@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <1A507543-2EB6-4A65-8C4C-DA06D3D3A3B2@acm.org>



well put.

I am certainly hoping that while the US does not sign it, I hope they voluntarily adhere to the good things suggested in this non binding treaty.

avri

On 11 Feb 2013, at 05:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> BTW, as a Brazilian gov representative says, those who signed the ITRs will not necessarily follow its determinations (Brazil included), and those who did not sign might follow several of its recommendations. So there would be really no relevant motive for all this fuss around defunding ITU.


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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Mon Feb 11 12:49:03 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:49:03 -0500
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CAJhHpNvj8=q7Y__EvzXv+dzL-Ck=Xd71=0-r-u7pNCjW_AmHKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com> <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com> <5118CE7D.6010706@cafonso.ca> <CAJhHpNvj8=q7Y__EvzXv+dzL-Ck=Xd71=0-r-u7pNCjW_AmHKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DDD71265-00F4-4572-9624-62090826F4AB@acm.org>


On 11 Feb 2013, at 06:09, Katim S. Touray wrote:

> I remember asking him how it feels now that most of his detractors and critics were either long dead or out of office. I leave it to your imagination to guess his reply to my question.


i can't imagine.  

something like: "oh, yes, i am so sorry that they died or left office before we could come to a meeting of the minds"

???

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

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Mon Feb 11 12:57:21 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:57:21 -0200
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CE8CD636-AB50-4D4B-8EFF-8D091F25AE95@hserus.net>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com> <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com> <5118CE7D.6010706@cafonso.ca> <CAJhHpNvj8=q7Y__EvzXv+dzL-Ck=Xd71=0-r-u7pNCjW_AmHKg@mail.gmail.com> <7CB139E1-34B9-4E4C-9CBA-1F597454446C@uzh.ch> <CE8CD636-AB50-4D4B-8EFF-8D091F25AE95@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <51193101.9050508@cafonso.ca>

Hmmm... alive, dead or... zombies?

--c.a.

On 02/11/2013 01:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> With enough money salted away, and beyond the jurisdiction of anyone inclined to prosecute, I suppose that one  cares little or nothing about detractors, or whether they are alive, dead or anything else.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 11-Feb-2013, at 20:37, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi Katim
>>
>> Did you happen to ask him about how he lost his bid for reelection when the Soviet bloc withdrew support due to fears that other countries would walk?  Or about the GAO report http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/142303.pdf  detailing his astonishing mismanagement of UNESCO's budget and staff?  According to many reports, this included spending 80% of the budget in Paris rather than around the world, and having the top two floors of the building converted into a rent free penthouse for himself. Did you ask how any of these actions helped promote media development or helped the poor in Africa, or anywhere else?  He turned UNESCO into an irresistible target for Reagan Administration retribution over the NWICO campaign.  While I certainly didn't support the US walking out and taking 25% of the budget with it, I wouldn't paint Mbow as either a martyr or an innocent bystander, either.  Sometimes Secretary Generals really do matter, including terrible ones.  M'Bow did substantial damage to the o
rganization and its position in the international system that took a long time to undue.
>>
>> The more recent US pullout is of course an entirely different matter.  Nobody in the Obama Administration is contending that the current SG is doing a bad job or that the organization is off the rails.  Their hands were tied by the Congress, and they're trying to get them free.  The current budget proposal restores the FY 2013 UNESCO assessment and the outstanding balance of the FY 2012 assessment.  As you can imagine, the US right is up in arms…
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Katim S. Touray <kstouray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> All this talk about UNESCO and the US government reminds me of a night in Dakar, Senegal, in 2003.
>>>
>>> I was there for a conference of African intellectuals and on our way by bus to a conference event called dialog among generations, I was lucky enough to sit, by pure accident, next to Dr. Amadou Mahktar Mbow, former Director General of UNESCO.  I recall we had a wonderful conversation, mainly on UNESCO's efforts regarding the struggle for the then New International Information Order (remember that one?), and the boycott of the organization by the US.  I remember asking him how it feels now that most of his detractors and critics were either long dead or out of office. I leave it to your imagination to guess his reply to my question.
>>>
>>> Katim
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>> Louis, you are right (sadly). The USA started boycotting Unesco in 1984 (with the argument that Unesco did not adhere to US foreign policy) and did so for about 20 years. In 2011 they found another argument to stop supporting Unesco -- the recognition of Palestine as a Unesco member -- on the grounds that allegiance to Israel is determinant to US foreign policy.
>>>>
>>>> Curiously, though, they did not ask anyone else for support or relied on a public mobilization -- just an executive order was enough, both in '84 and in 2011.
>>>>
>>>> There is in my view no chance of them boycotting the ITU -- like Israel in the case of Palestine, this decision will be determined by the leverage of US telecom industry, not public petitions. Who will feed ITU-T, ITU-R etc, if there is a relevant boycott afer all?
>>>>
>>>> This standards structure, working in partnership with the likes of IEEE, IETF and others, is BTW crucial for the future of spectrum allocation; no other international body exists with the same capability. My view is that as the Internet advances, ITU will be left with the only role of coordination international spectrum allocation policy.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, as a Brazilian gov representative says, those who signed the ITRs will not necessarily follow its determinations (Brazil included), and those who did not sign might follow several of its recommendations. So there would be really no relevant motive for all this fuss around defunding ITU.
>>>>
>>>> frt rgds
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/10/2013 07:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and let us remind ourselves that *we still need the ITU* !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>> C. A. Afonso
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - - -
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The USG plays this defunding game with UNESCO when it does not like a vote
>>>>> of the UNESCO members. This is presently the case because Palestine was
>>>>> admitted as member in 2011. As was predictable UNESCO had to reduce its
>>>>> budget, partly in reducing staff, partly in cutting funds for development
>>>>> projects, that is reducing its global activities. Victims are primarily
>>>>> developing countries. Is the USG expecting that they will vote in US favour
>>>>> on the next occasion ?
>>>>>
>>>>> When developing countries need funding, where could they get some ? China
>>>>> or Saudi Arabia are more than willing to "help", in return for some
>>>>> political and commercial deals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, the defund-the-ITU petition collected hardly 3% of the 25000
>>>>> signatures needed for taking off. A non event by world standard, but a
>>>>> success by US lobbies standards. They got unending publications references
>>>>> in Google, quoting over and again the petition propaganda. Of course the
>>>>> flop does not matter, the goal was massively funded noise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Btw, one may appreciate Google's algorithm relevance, which makes the
>>>>> petition (and Google's own position) an overwhelming noise, while non
>>>>> aligned viewpoints make a tiny signal with only two references:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/demystifying-itus-role-internet-governance/
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-beat-it-some-more/
>>>>>
>>>>> Louis
>>>>> - - -
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>>> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>>>>>> Date: 10/02/2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00)
>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects
>>>>>> tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU budget
>>>>>> is a rounding error. ****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** **
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the
>>>>>> hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU campaign
>>>>>> is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries)
>>>>>> continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a
>>>>>> legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a
>>>>>> calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of the
>>>>>> ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically
>>>>>> reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion in
>>>>>> a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about
>>>>>> geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  ****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your 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 Feb 11 16:50:59 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:50:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>

[IGC Coordinator hat on]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.

A number of comments have been made that we now need to resolve. In the
following, I will give, for each of the paragraphs, the comment, and
then propose a resolution.

If from your perspective either the current text or the proposed
resolution is not acceptable, please say so by Wednesday Feb 13, 23.59
PST. If we get opposition to both variants, the coordinators may be
forced to make a rough consensus call or, in the worst case, drop the
conflicted paragraph from the statement in its entirety. Let's try to
avoid that eventuality.

All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107

Paragraph 3
===========
Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
It is time to do what it really needed to do."

McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
does it “really need to do”?"

Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
of."

Paragraph 12
============
Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."

Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"

Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."

Paragraphs 13 + 14
==================
Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"

Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."

Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
"There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
times."

Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the number
of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main session topics
should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the
tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions
held at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those
who have been heard from many times."

Paragraphs 21 and 22
====================
Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
commitments on Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the
next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"

Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific public
comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting
to decide on topics and format."

Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG to
proceed unfortunately."

Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"

Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
suggestions to that effect."

Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and the
review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why
not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for development?"

Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
Action Plan (2003)"

Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of
the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
“governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
[The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in Bali.]
[Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium Development Goals
are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the
discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003
could be looked at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of
IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and
format."

Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.

Paragraph 36
============
Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."

Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."

Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide, you
need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."

Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
stakeholders can comment."

Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."

Any missed comments???
======================
If I've missed any comments (that were posted by the deadline) please
repost them ASAP, together with a proposed resolution.


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  Mon Feb 11 17:08:12 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:08:12 -0800
Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging Internet Cold
 War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
Message-ID: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com>

I've taken my comments below and expanded them as a blogpost (with links
etc.

 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/civil-society-and-the-emerging-inte
rnet-cold-war-non-alignment-and-the-public-interest/

 

http://tinyurl.com/bllvbry

 

Comments/critiques etc. welcomed


 

M

 

From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 8:43 AM
To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Philipp Mirtl'; 'Louis Pouzin (well)'
Subject: RE: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"

 

To carry forward this Cold War analogy I'm wondering whether the appropriate
position for civil society should rather be one of "non-alignment"; that is,
a position which recognizes a degree of validity in both sets of arguments
but chooses to put these in the broader and more univeral context of the
development of the Internet as a global public good, operating in support of
the global public interest where there is a universal acceptance of free
expression, human rights, and a fair distribution of economic benefits among
other rights and principles.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Mirtl
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:41 AM
To: Louis Pouzin (well); governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: AW: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"

 

Dear Louis,

 

Thanks for your comment. Please note that the commentary was written by
Alexander Klimburg, who I am working together with – not myself. Alex is not
member to this list which is why he asked me to forward you the following:

 

“Depends what you mean by “creeping cyberwar”. If you mean the often-noted
“militarisation of cyberspace” that is only one trend – and in some cases it
is simply really part of “de-spooking of cyberwar” (i.e. making it more,
rather than less, visible). The vast majority cyberconflict is invisible to
those without the necessary technical or governmental insight.“

 

For more info, I also send you two additional links on that issue:

 

-          Alexander Klimburg (2011): “Mobilising Cyber Power”, Survival,
53:1, 41-60 (via:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/coursereading2011/Klimcyber.pdf)

-          Alexander Klimburg (Ed.) (2012), National Cyber Security
Framework Manual, NATO CCD COE Publication (via:
http://www.ccdcoe.org/369.html)

 

Warm regards,

 

Philipp

 

 

Von: pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Louis Pouzin
(well)
Gesendet: Montag, 11. Februar 2013 16:21
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Philipp Mirtl
Betreff: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"

 

Hi Philipp,

Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend is
indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the creeping
cyberwar ?

Best, Louis
- - -

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at>
wrote:

Dear list members,

 

For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently published
commentary on WCIT-12: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.

 

The abstract reads as follows:

 

“The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International
Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February 1945
meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long Internet Cold
War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries. The battles over
Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just about competing
visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness and the other
security. They are also about two different visions of political power – one
in which that power is increasingly distributed and includes non-state
actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the Yalta Conference,
Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first, they allowed naive
statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual realities on the ground.
Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in permitting ambiguous
definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been repeated at WCIT.”

 

Best regards,

 

 

Philipp Mirtl

 

Fellow / Adviser

Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip)

Austrian Institute for International Affairs

Berggasse 7

A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA

Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29 <tel:%2B43-%280%291-581%2011%2006-29> 

Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10 <tel:%2B43-%281%291-581%2011%2006-10> 

E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at

Website: www.oiip.ac.at <http://www.oiip.ac.at/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/ee620020/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Feb 11 17:18:55 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:18:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>

<I've made this comment on the web as well>

Michael,

Can you back up the below with any facts? My impression is that China,
Russia, Iran, etc don’t give a fig about digital inclusion!

“In addition to the positions noted above, the cybersovereigntists
include a number of those whose primary concern is that of ensuring
the widest possible access to the Internet (digital inclusion) and to
the economic benefits that are accruing as a result of Internet
activity; “


-- 
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 Feb 11 17:55:20 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:55:20 -0800
Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com>

I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the issue, but
at least from my reading there was considerable support for the below among
the "sovereigntist" camp--my point being that there was a wide range of
perspectives within that group and it is possible/desireable for CS to make
the effort to recognize that spectrum and to align itself with those who for
example support the below (and seek a means to have them support our broader
positions). That the "lib-dems" ended up "opposing" the resolution below if
only by association, should be (and I believe has been) a cause of
considerable embarrassment within that camp and its followers.

M

RESOLUTION PLEN/1 (DUBAI, 2012) 
Special measures for landlocked developing countries and small island
developing
states for access to international optical fibre networks

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Pages/News.aspx?ItemID=16 +
http://www.un.org/special-rep/ohrlls/lldc/default.htm

M

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 2:19 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging
Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest

<I've made this comment on the web as well>

Michael,

Can you back up the below with any facts? My impression is that China,
Russia, Iran, etc don't give a fig about digital inclusion!

"In addition to the positions noted above, the cybersovereigntists include a
number of those whose primary concern is that of ensuring the widest
possible access to the Internet (digital inclusion) and to the economic
benefits that are accruing as a result of Internet activity; "


--
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  Mon Feb 11 18:08:43 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:08:43 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <511979FB.4090008@cafonso.ca>

McTim, at a minimum Russia and China are not dumb -- the Internet has 
become significant part of their economic development as well, and 
universalization is central to this process. The "etc" in your phrase is 
dubious...

On the other hand, Europe cut their annual budget for the first time, 
hurting digital inclusion investments in the area, as Neelie points out 
(in this case, almost a tenfold cut). It seems Europe is not giving a 
damn about DI as well eh?

--c.a.

On 02/11/2013 08:18 PM, McTim wrote:
> <I've made this comment on the web as well>
>
> Michael,
>
> Can you back up the below with any facts? My impression is that China,
> Russia, Iran, etc don’t give a fig about digital inclusion!
>
> “In addition to the positions noted above, the cybersovereigntists
> include a number of those whose primary concern is that of ensuring
> the widest possible access to the Internet (digital inclusion) and to
> the economic benefits that are accruing as a result of Internet
> activity; “
>
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 11 18:29:13 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:29:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
 <08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the issue, but
> at least from my reading there was considerable support for the below among
> the "sovereigntist" camp

"The approved Resolution was unanimously supported by ITU Member States"

I don't see your point.  Everyone supported this resolution according
to the BDT press release, which is hilarious BTW...."ITU is at the
very heart of the ICT sector" for example.


-- 
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 Feb 11 18:37:44 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:37:44 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <511979FB.4090008@cafonso.ca>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
 <511979FB.4090008@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgMMb9N1mAco+u18CvscCVir6OSAmeQt6fhPM0Xk1f9+w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
> McTim, at a minimum Russia and China are not dumb -- the Internet has become
> significant part of their economic development as well, and universalization
> is central to this process.


They are both also keen to take control over naming and addressing in
the "national segments" as well as to censor what their citizenry can
and can't see or produce content wise.

Why would we want to support these Member States agendas?

>The "etc" in your phrase is dubious...

Are there no other like minded Member States?  Many of not most of the
African States were pulled into the vortex of the agenda set by the 3
I named.  How is that dubious?

-- 
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 Feb 11 18:47:44 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:47:44 -0800
Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com> <08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <092601ce08b2$384993b0$a8dcbb10$@gmail.com>

McTim, my point was and remains that there are a range of issues involved in
these matters and that the polarization generated at the WCIT may serve the
interests of some but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality nor the
interests/values of CS.

CS should be looking for higher ground (to my mind support for the Internet
as a global public good) and finding allies in support of this wherever they
can found.  The focusing in the WCIT (and dare I say before that at the IGF)
on the Internet Freedom issue by certain elements within CS and others
ignored the very large range of issues on which agreement could and should
be found and overall as I said CS should be "non-aligned" in the emerging
"Internet Cold War" and developing it's own position(s) which include among
others free expression, human rights, and digital inclusion.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:29 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging
Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the 
> issue, but at least from my reading there was considerable support for 
> the below among the "sovereigntist" camp

"The approved Resolution was unanimously supported by ITU Member States"

I don't see your point.  Everyone supported this resolution according to the
BDT press release, which is hilarious BTW...."ITU is at the very heart of
the ICT sector" for example.


--
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 iza at anr.org  Mon Feb 11 20:26:19 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:26:19 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Discussion Forum
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKi1ts_zAeSjpbXjy=7mpE8XhHvDYYuvE6zFdr73xOumnw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

There are now new threads created at IGF Discussion Forum, for main
and sub themes.

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/discussionspace?func=showcat&catid=7

This board is not as active as it could be, but worth a try to submit
your ideas and comments.

izumi

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

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Mon Feb 11 20:30:02 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:30:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
In-Reply-To: <067a01ce0876$e07af240$a170d6c0$@gmail.com>
References: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local>
 <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8F9@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> <067a01ce0876$e07af240$a170d6c0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYov5tg-sSiQw2OWtu7nq9YnL8R-k33U5Wme=4EqcDcEbA@mail.gmail.com>

When major actors are split in two dominant groups, minor ones tend to
adopt a non committed neutral position. Then they may exploit it in ways
that fit their or some other interests.

What you are proposing is a valid global picture. It needs bones to be
effective, that is, influential.

E.g. produce reports, books, surveys, ...
Organize events, seminars, camps, petitions, ...
Set up a comprehensive data base on critical topics
.. add more suggestions

Best, Louis





 On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> To carry forward this Cold War analogy I'm wondering whether the
> appropriate position for civil society should rather be one of
> "non-alignment"; that is, a position which recognizes a degree of validity
> in both sets of arguments but chooses to put these in the broader and more
> univeral context of the development of the Internet as a global public
> good, operating in support of the global public interest where there is a
> universal acceptance of free expression, human rights, and a fair
> distribution of economic benefits among other rights and principles.****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Philipp Mirtl
> *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2013 7:41 AM
> *To:* Louis Pouzin (well); governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* AW: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear Louis,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for your comment. Please note that the commentary was written by
> Alexander Klimburg, who I am working together with – not myself. Alex is
> not member to this list which is why he asked me to forward you the
> following:****
>
> ** **
>
> “Depends what you mean by “creeping cyberwar”. If you mean the often-noted
> “militarisation of cyberspace” that is only one trend – and in some cases
> it is simply really part of “de-spooking of cyberwar” (i.e. making it more,
> rather than less, visible). The vast majority cyberconflict is invisible to
> those without the necessary technical or governmental insight.“****
>
> ** **
>
> For more info, I also send you two additional links on that issue:****
>
> ** **
>
> **-          **Alexander Klimburg (2011): “Mobilising Cyber Power”,
> Survival, 53:1, 41-60 (via:
> http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/coursereading2011/Klimcyber.pdf)****
>
> **-          **Alexander Klimburg (Ed.) (2012), *National Cyber Security
> Framework Manual*, NATO CCD COE Publication (via:
> http://www.ccdcoe.org/369.html)****
>
> ** **
>
> Warm regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> Philipp****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *Von:* pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com <pouzin at gmail.com>] *Im
> Auftrag von *Louis Pouzin (well)
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 11. Februar 2013 16:21
> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Philipp Mirtl
> *Betreff:* [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Philipp,
>
> Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend is
> indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the creeping
> cyberwar ?
>
> Best, Louis
> - - -****
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at>
> wrote:****
>
> Dear list members,****
>
>  ****
>
> For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently
> published *commentary on WCIT-12*: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> The abstract reads as follows:****
>
>  ****
>
> “The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International
> Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February
> 1945 meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long
> Internet Cold War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries.
> The battles over Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just
> about competing visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness
> and the other security. They are also about two different visions of
> political power – one in which that power is increasingly distributed and
> includes non-state actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the
> Yalta Conference, Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first,
> they allowed naive statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual
> realities on the ground. Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in
> permitting ambiguous definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been
> repeated at WCIT.”****
>
>  ****
>
> Best regards,****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Philipp Mirtl****
>
>  ****
>
> Fellow / Adviser****
>
> Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip)****
>
> Austrian Institute for International Affairs****
>
> Berggasse 7****
>
> A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA****
>
> Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29****
>
> Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10****
>
> E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at****
>
> Website: www.oiip.ac.at****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/63f48281/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb 11 20:37:28 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:07:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYov5tg-sSiQw2OWtu7nq9YnL8R-k33U5Wme=4EqcDcEbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com> <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8F9@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> <067a01ce0876$e07af240$a170d6c0$@gmail.com> <CA+EjHYov5tg-sSiQw2OWtu7nq9YnL8R-k33U5Wme=4EqcDcEbA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47CAD116-E4A3-4623-BA36-532AC55898FB@hserus.net>

Interesting choice of words. 

The non aligned movement - 50s era nehru / tito / nasser served as a rather ineffectual grouping of countries with a mostly pro soviet tilt.  It is still around, and mostly moribund.

Does civil society really need to go down that path?

--srs (iPad)

On 12-Feb-2013, at 7:00, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:

> When major actors are split in two dominant groups, minor ones tend to adopt a non committed neutral position. Then they may exploit it in ways that fit their or some other interests.
> 
> What you are proposing is a valid global picture. It needs bones to be effective, that is, influential.
> 
> E.g. produce reports, books, surveys, ...
> Organize events, seminars, camps, petitions, ...
> Set up a comprehensive data base on critical topics
> .. add more suggestions
> 
> Best, Louis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> To carry forward this Cold War analogy I'm wondering whether the appropriate position for civil society should rather be one of "non-alignment"; that is, a position which recognizes a degree of validity in both sets of arguments but chooses to put these in the broader and more univeral context of the development of the Internet as a global public good, operating in support of the global public interest where there is a universal acceptance of free expression, human rights, and a fair distribution of economic benefits among other rights and principles.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> M
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Mirtl
>> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:41 AM
>> To: Louis Pouzin (well); governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: AW: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear Louis,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks for your comment. Please note that the commentary was written by Alexander Klimburg, who I am working together with – not myself. Alex is not member to this list which is why he asked me to forward you the following:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> “Depends what you mean by “creeping cyberwar”. If you mean the often-noted “militarisation of cyberspace” that is only one trend – and in some cases it is simply really part of “de-spooking of cyberwar” (i.e. making it more, rather than less, visible). The vast majority cyberconflict is invisible to those without the necessary technical or governmental insight.“
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> For more info, I also send you two additional links on that issue:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -          Alexander Klimburg (2011): “Mobilising Cyber Power”, Survival, 53:1, 41-60 (via: http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/coursereading2011/Klimcyber.pdf)
>> 
>> -          Alexander Klimburg (Ed.) (2012), National Cyber Security Framework Manual, NATO CCD COE Publication (via: http://www.ccdcoe.org/369.html)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Warm regards,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Philipp
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Von: pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Louis Pouzin (well)
>> Gesendet: Montag, 11. Februar 2013 16:21
>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Philipp Mirtl
>> Betreff: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Hi Philipp,
>> 
>> Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend is indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the creeping cyberwar ?
>> 
>> Best, Louis
>> - - -
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear list members,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently published commentary on WCIT-12: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The abstract reads as follows:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> “The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February 1945 meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long Internet Cold War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries. The battles over Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just about competing visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness and the other security. They are also about two different visions of political power – one in which that power is increasingly distributed and includes non-state actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the Yalta Conference, Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first, they allowed naive statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual realities on the ground. Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in permitting ambiguous definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been repeated at WCIT.”
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Philipp Mirtl
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Fellow / Adviser
>> 
>> Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip)
>> 
>> Austrian Institute for International Affairs
>> 
>> Berggasse 7
>> 
>> A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA
>> 
>> Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29
>> 
>> Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10
>> 
>> E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at
>> 
>> Website: www.oiip.ac.at
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/5bf1acd4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Mon Feb 11 20:41:36 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:41:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxhJmPDg_VqPk0HrxhEqxEPq+D6GBi7N6ARSeevRpjO40Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>
 <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhqF48G-h85qpFiYuyLHFEa1cFqE7WbuKpvD7O6u9VMDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <13cc6ed5aa9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <CA+EjHYrKGA7AMrjYh_g0SHJ0+vVx1knOpE2kCK1tM0HjxFBWAg@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhJmPDg_VqPk0HrxhEqxEPq+D6GBi7N6ARSeevRpjO40Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYq4PTMQ0DKKNNcAro-yF-USVrQXJLLoX_MXA1SnqwE-Xg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it's appropriate to raise the Israel/Palestine debate on
> this
> > list. One side views are well known and don't improve anything.
>
> hmmmm, you were the one who brought it up!
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
- - -

Nope. I only mentioned Palestine membership in Unesco. Nothing more.
Semantic extrapolations belong to the reader.

Cheers, Louis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/79c66888/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Feb 11 21:24:51 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:24:51 -0500
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYq4PTMQ0DKKNNcAro-yF-USVrQXJLLoX_MXA1SnqwE-Xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>
 <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhqF48G-h85qpFiYuyLHFEa1cFqE7WbuKpvD7O6u9VMDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <13cc6ed5aa9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <CA+EjHYrKGA7AMrjYh_g0SHJ0+vVx1knOpE2kCK1tM0HjxFBWAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhJmPDg_VqPk0HrxhEqxEPq+D6GBi7N6ARSeevRpjO40Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYq4PTMQ0DKKNNcAro-yF-USVrQXJLLoX_MXA1SnqwE-Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxh42PDWP+ya6wsJ1ve8NueD+9=YS28a5+3Yxxnecz8awA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't think it's appropriate to raise the Israel/Palestine debate on
>> > this
>> > list. One side views are well known and don't improve anything.
>>
>> hmmmm, you were the one who brought it up!
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>
> - - -
>
> Nope. I only mentioned Palestine membership in Unesco. Nothing more.

and they aren't inexorably linked in international politics?

-- 
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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 11 21:45:11 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:45:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Modernizaci=C3=B3n_de_la_lista?=
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLsXQX_68xPuGEzwROLFSRQvNoxeezmoJ-TR84-2HJuezw@mail.gmail.com>

Creo que no es necesario irse asta los años 50, si somos prácticos y vemos
las políticas que aplican las potencias en el mundo sobre los demás,
entonces tendremos un paraíso de arena.


Es por eso que muchos prefieren no ver y vivir en su paraíso imaginario.
Debemos ser más abiertos cognitivamente para las propuestas


Y es verdad necesitamos una imagen global valido, para ser eficaces en
nuestras propuestas: la de llevar la Internet de libre acceso a la
información y la comunicación a todos los pueblos del mundo sin censura
alguna.


Es valido cuando se propone que la lista elabore, informes, libros,
estudios, organización de eventos, seminarios, campamentos, peticiones, y crear
bases de datos integrales sobre temas críticos


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130211/207b0e6e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb 11 22:14:56 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:44:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxh42PDWP+ya6wsJ1ve8NueD+9=YS28a5+3Yxxnecz8awA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com> <CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhqF48G-h85qpFiYuyLHFEa1cFqE7WbuKpvD7O6u9VMDg@mail.gmail.com> <13cc6ed5aa9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CA+EjHYrKGA7AMrjYh_g0SHJ0+vVx1knOpE2kCK1tM0HjxFBWAg@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhJmPDg_VqPk0HrxhEqxEPq+D6GBi7N6ARSeevRpjO40Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYq4PTMQ0DKKNNcAro-yF-USVrQXJLLoX_MXA1SnqwE-Xg@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxh42PDWP+ya6wsJ1ve8NueD+9=YS28a5+3Yxxnecz8awA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8DFE61EB-A4CB-4015-AB1F-B3CAAEAF217F@hserus.net>

This is what we get when a section of civil society decides to play politics rather than working on policy.

--srs (iPad)

On 12-Feb-2013, at 7:54, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think it's appropriate to raise the Israel/Palestine debate on
>>>> this
>>>> list. One side views are well known and don't improve anything.
>>> 
>>> hmmmm, you were the one who brought it up!
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>> 
>> - - -
>> 
>> Nope. I only mentioned Palestine membership in Unesco. Nothing more.
> 
> and they aren't inexorably linked in international politics?
> 
> -- 
> 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 nashton at ccianet.org  Tue Feb 12 01:36:55 2013
From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:36:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <-8965642324291932599@unknownmsgid>

I have to say, the whole Cold War analogy post-WCIT is grossly overbaked
IMO. I can tell you it is seen as a joke in Geneva amongst delegations
(including amongst those accused of being the protagonists/antagonists).

-- 
Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart

Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling.

On 11 Feb 2013, at 16:22, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:

Hi Philipp,

Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend is
indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the creeping
cyberwar ?

Best, Louis
- - -

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at>wrote:

> Dear list members,****
>
> ** **
>
> For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently
> published *commentary on WCIT-12*: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> The abstract reads as follows:****
>
> ** **
>
> “The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International
> Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February
> 1945 meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long
> Internet Cold War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries.
> The battles over Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just
> about competing visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness
> and the other security. They are also about two different visions of
> political power – one in which that power is increasingly distributed and
> includes non-state actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the
> Yalta Conference, Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first,
> they allowed naive statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual
> realities on the ground. Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in
> permitting ambiguous definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been
> repeated at WCIT.”****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Philipp Mirtl****
>
> ** **
>
> Fellow / Adviser****
>
> Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip)****
>
> Austrian Institute for International Affairs****
>
> Berggasse 7****
>
> A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA****
>
> Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29****
>
> Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10****
>
> E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at****
>
> Website: www.oiip.ac.at****
>
> ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/b5b92f45/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kichango at gmail.com  Tue Feb 12 03:46:22 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:46:22 +0000
Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <092601ce08b2$384993b0$a8dcbb10$@gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
	<08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<092601ce08b2$384993b0$a8dcbb10$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACTo+v-9eMXNBXUq8vT8=7Wy-mogR8+rhc7kGsDPiSCEWvBz7A@mail.gmail.com>

At the very least, it has become abundantly clear that when it comes
to the internet, there is private/corporate interest-grown CS and
there is public interest-grown CS. Public interest-grown CS has
something in common with the *notion* of state or (public) government
even though they often have to fight against established governments;
on the other hand the private/corporate interest-grown CS is never
more so apparent and so vocal as when the corporations with interests
at stake cannot influence the policy agenda upfront (which they are
probably used to doing in big corporation-friendly governments) or
stop policymakers both at home and overseas from considering decisions
that they think are detrimental to their business.

Now, I am not implying that one can say this entity is a
private/corporate interest-grown CSO and that entity is a public
interest-grown CSO. Neither am I a Manichean rejecting the notion that
those two sets of interests might overlap or align sometimes. I know
corporations have a beneficial impact in the public arena and some go
out of their way to do social good. There are many variables that
might lead an entity to behave like one or the other kind of CS,
starting with the issue area which will have to be one that involves
those two sets of interests and funding structures, etc. I am just
saying even though they might not always have clear cut material
boundaries, those logics or dynamics exist in the public sphere or in
our public discourse and sometimes profoundly define the terms of the
debate. If that is the case then when taking positions on issues of
interest for the two kinds of CS, public interest-grown CS should
spell things out (e.g., its fundamental premises and values as well as
its ultimate goals, and possibly what distinguishes them from other
CS-like discourses) in a manner that enables its actors and
representatives to interact constructively and evolve toward possible
points of agreement with all participants/sides, with the constant
conscience and within the boundaries of those premises, values and
goals. It is either that or the wholesale and buying of pre-fabricated
slogans and supposedly irreconcilable or non-amendable antagonisms.

Best,

Mawaki
P.S. If I sounded above like addressing the question more from the
standpoint of what I call public interest-grown CS, it's because my
understanding is that this Caucus was formed in that vein and, at the
very least, that's where I'm coming from.


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:47 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> McTim, my point was and remains that there are a range of issues involved in
> these matters and that the polarization generated at the WCIT may serve the
> interests of some but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality nor the
> interests/values of CS.
>
> CS should be looking for higher ground (to my mind support for the Internet
> as a global public good) and finding allies in support of this wherever they
> can found.  The focusing in the WCIT (and dare I say before that at the IGF)
> on the Internet Freedom issue by certain elements within CS and others
> ignored the very large range of issues on which agreement could and should
> be found and overall as I said CS should be "non-aligned" in the emerging
> "Internet Cold War" and developing it's own position(s) which include among
> others free expression, human rights, and digital inclusion.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:29 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP
> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the Emerging
> Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the
>> issue, but at least from my reading there was considerable support for
>> the below among the "sovereigntist" camp
>
> "The approved Resolution was unanimously supported by ITU Member States"
>
> I don't see your point.  Everyone supported this resolution according to the
> BDT press release, which is hilarious BTW...."ITU is at the very heart of
> the ICT sector" for example.
>
>
> --
> 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 kstouray at gmail.com  Tue Feb 12 04:37:44 2013
From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:37:44 +0000
Subject: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
In-Reply-To: <7CB139E1-34B9-4E4C-9CBA-1F597454446C@uzh.ch>
References: <1y0e6pvo7yxl12vpmu3eymr4.1360525977790@email.android.com>
	<CA+EjHYpi6XtT0cfskNGz3QBSn2Sitk86biG=wHwmcoF2NMkYWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5118CE7D.6010706@cafonso.ca>
	<CAJhHpNvj8=q7Y__EvzXv+dzL-Ck=Xd71=0-r-u7pNCjW_AmHKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CB139E1-34B9-4E4C-9CBA-1F597454446C@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CAJhHpNsBY4suno7PWeT+pdHo2VmegqtHU51252HXbkSDTe4vkw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the interesting points you raised.  And, no, I didn't asked Dr.
Mbow about the issues you raised, which I am hearing for the first time
from you.  As you can imagine, I didn't get all sides of the story back
then, so your perspective is informative and helpful.

And thanks also to Avri and others for sending in their thoughts and
sharing their imaginations, as fertile as they are!

Katim


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Katim
>
> Did you happen to ask him about how he lost his bid for reelection when
> the Soviet bloc withdrew support due to fears that other countries would
> walk?  Or about the GAO report http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/142303.pdf  detailing
> his astonishing mismanagement of UNESCO's budget and staff?  According to
> many reports, this included spending 80% of the budget in Paris rather than
> around the world, and having the top two floors of the building converted
> into a rent free penthouse for himself. Did you ask how any of these
> actions helped promote media development or helped the poor in Africa, or
> anywhere else?  He turned UNESCO into an irresistible target for Reagan
> Administration retribution over the NWICO campaign.  While I certainly
> didn't support the US walking out and taking 25% of the budget with it, I
> wouldn't paint Mbow as either a martyr or an innocent bystander, either.
>  Sometimes Secretary Generals really do matter, including terrible ones.
>  M'Bow did substantial damage to the organization and its position in the
> international system that took a long time to undue.
>
> The more recent US pullout is of course an entirely different matter.
>  Nobody in the Obama Administration is contending that the current SG is
> doing a bad job or that the organization is off the rails.  Their hands
> were tied by the Congress, and they're trying to get them free.  The
> current budget proposal restores the FY 2013 UNESCO assessment and
> the outstanding balance of the FY 2012 assessment.  As you can imagine, the
> US right is up in arms…
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Katim S. Touray <kstouray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> All this talk about UNESCO and the US government reminds me of a night in
> Dakar, Senegal, in 2003.
>
> I was there for a conference of African intellectuals and on our way by
> bus to a conference event called dialog among generations, I was lucky
> enough to sit, by pure accident, next to Dr. Amadou Mahktar Mbow, former
> Director General of UNESCO.  I recall we had a wonderful conversation,
> mainly on UNESCO's efforts regarding the struggle for the then New
> International Information Order (remember that one?), and the boycott of
> the organization by the US.  I remember asking him how it feels now that
> most of his detractors and critics were either long dead or out of
> office. I leave it to your imagination to guess his reply to my question.
>
> Katim
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>
>> Louis, you are right (sadly). The USA started boycotting Unesco in 1984
>> (with the argument that Unesco did not adhere to US foreign policy) and did
>> so for about 20 years. In 2011 they found another argument to stop
>> supporting Unesco -- the recognition of Palestine as a Unesco member -- on
>> the grounds that allegiance to Israel is determinant to US foreign policy.
>>
>> Curiously, though, they did not ask anyone else for support or relied on
>> a public mobilization -- just an executive order was enough, both in '84
>> and in 2011.
>>
>> There is in my view no chance of them boycotting the ITU -- like Israel
>> in the case of Palestine, this decision will be determined by the leverage
>> of US telecom industry, not public petitions. Who will feed ITU-T, ITU-R
>> etc, if there is a relevant boycott afer all?
>>
>> This standards structure, working in partnership with the likes of IEEE,
>> IETF and others, is BTW crucial for the future of spectrum allocation; no
>> other international body exists with the same capability. My view is that
>> as the Internet advances, ITU will be left with the only role of
>> coordination international spectrum allocation policy.
>>
>> BTW, as a Brazilian gov representative says, those who signed the ITRs
>> will not necessarily follow its determinations (Brazil included), and those
>> who did not sign might follow several of its recommendations. So there
>> would be really no relevant motive for all this fuss around defunding ITU.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>
>> On 02/10/2013 07:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>  ...and let us remind ourselves that *we still need the ITU* !!
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
>>>> ------------
>>>> C. A. Afonso
>>>>
>>>> - - -
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The USG plays this defunding game with UNESCO when it does not like a
>>> vote
>>> of the UNESCO members. This is presently the case because Palestine was
>>> admitted as member in 2011. As was predictable UNESCO had to reduce its
>>> budget, partly in reducing staff, partly in cutting funds for development
>>> projects, that is reducing its global activities. Victims are primarily
>>> developing countries. Is the USG expecting that they will vote in US
>>> favour
>>> on the next occasion ?
>>>
>>> When developing countries need funding, where could they get some ? China
>>> or Saudi Arabia are more than willing to "help", in return for some
>>> political and commercial deals.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the defund-the-ITU petition collected hardly 3% of the 25000
>>> signatures needed for taking off. A non event by world standard, but a
>>> success by US lobbies standards. They got unending publications
>>> references
>>> in Google, quoting over and again the petition propaganda. Of course the
>>> flop does not matter, the goal was massively funded noise.
>>>
>>> Btw, one may appreciate Google's algorithm relevance, which makes the
>>> petition (and Google's own position) an overwhelming noise, while non
>>> aligned viewpoints make a tiny signal with only two references:
>>>
>>> http://www.abiresearch.com/**blogs/demystifying-itus-role-**
>>> internet-governance/<http://www.abiresearch.com/blogs/demystifying-itus-role-internet-governance/>
>>>
>>> http://www.internetgovernance.**org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-**
>>> dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-**beat-it-some-more/<http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/01/28/lets-keep-this-dead-horse-alive-so-we-can-beat-it-some-more/>
>>>
>>> Louis
>>> - - -
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>>>> Date: 10/02/2013 17:28 (GMT-03:00)
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,**Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net>
>>>> Subject: RE: [governance] Defund the ITU petition
>>>>
>>>>   Considering all the ways in which the US govt (involuntarily) collects
>>>> tax monies and uses them in ways that oppose my interests, the ITU
>>>> budget
>>>> is a rounding error. ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cannot speak for Adam, but perhaps he was concerned about the
>>>> hyperventilated and distorted manner in which the defund the ITU
>>>> campaign
>>>> is being carried out. The degree to which the US (and other countries)
>>>> continue to financially support the ITU (and other UN agencies) is a
>>>> legitimate topic of debate and discussion. Indeed, I would like to see a
>>>> calm and pragmatic discussion of what people see as the future role of
>>>> the
>>>> ITU, and am perfectly willing to entertain “no role” or “a dramatically
>>>> reduced role” as a debatable option. But let’s carry out the discussion
>>>> in
>>>> a less polarized way, and one that pays attention to basic facts about
>>>> geopolitics and intergovernmental relations.  ****
>>>>
>>>> ** **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/e4ac4454/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Tue Feb 12 05:31:42 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:31:42 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com> <08ec01ce08aa$e693c6f0$b3bb54d0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjtPQo36vR0rBQ3raC6QktrLuKV-R+igw2JDq5r_Uh1yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <511A1A0E.6020900@cafonso.ca>

In order to laugh, we first need to know what the "heart of the ICT 
sector" is, McT.

--c.a.

On 02/11/2013 09:29 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've no idea of the position of "China, Russia, Iran etc." on the issue, but
>> at least from my reading there was considerable support for the below among
>> the "sovereigntist" camp
>
> "The approved Resolution was unanimously supported by ITU Member States"
>
> I don't see your point.  Everyone supported this resolution according
> to the BDT press release, which is hilarious BTW...."ITU is at the
> very heart of the ICT sector" for example.
>
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 12 05:54:49 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:54:49 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgMMb9N1mAco+u18CvscCVir6OSAmeQt6fhPM0Xk1f9+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com> <511979FB.4090008@cafonso.ca> <CACAaNxgMMb9N1mAco+u18CvscCVir6OSAmeQt6fhPM0Xk1f9+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <511A1F79.6070306@cafonso.ca>

McT,

On 02/11/2013 09:37 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>> McTim, at a minimum Russia and China are not dumb -- the Internet has become
>> significant part of their economic development as well, and universalization
>> is central to this process.
>
>
> They are both also keen to take control over naming and addressing in
> the "national segments" as well as to censor what their citizenry can
> and can't see or produce content wise.

Fine, although there are significant differences between Russia and 
China on this, and between both and Iran, but both Russia and China are 
universalizing the Internet in their countries on very objective grounds.

>
> Why would we want to support these Member States agendas?
>
>> The "etc" in your phrase is dubious...
>
> Are there no other like minded Member States?  Many of not most of the
> African States were pulled into the vortex of the agenda set by the 3
> I named.  How is that dubious?

Wrong. Many of the 89 voted yes not because they are "like-minded". As I 
said elsewhere, the reasons of the ones who voted no are not the same, 
so the 55 cannot be seen as "USA-like-minded" -- Or should we consider 
Europe as just a US-driven like-minded State? Actually, 104 did not vote 
yes (summing up the 55 nos and the 49 abstentions or no-shows) -- how do 
you classify this diverse bunch?

Regarding the ones who did vote: Brazil voted for the treaty because the 
gov sectors which have leverage on these policies are heavily influenced 
by transnational telcos who dominate the market here -- none of them 
from Russia or China (three of the big four are European). Its 
justification is that some of its proposals (which are not bad at all) 
made their way into the treaty, and in their defense delegation members 
claim the ITRs are not really binding...

This move incidentally meant a tremendous blow against the Marco Civil 
process now running in Congress. Both telcos and media (trying to insert 
arbitrary takedown measures without due process in the Marco) are 
bombarding it with intense lobbying in Congress and the help of the 
Ministry of Communications.

Let us not be simplistic on this.

--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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Feb 12 06:01:32 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:01:32 +0100
Subject: SV: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
References: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local>
 <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <-8965642324291932599@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013315E2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi
 
in my eyes, the "Digital Yalta" was in summer 2005 when the USG government published its four IG principles and recognized the "sovereignty" over ccTLDs and got in compensation from China the acceptance (for the time being) of the management of the A-Root Server for the global Internet. So the "deal" was: "If you recognize our sovereignty over our national space we can live we with the global management mechanism as it has emerged from history". 
 
Neither the Chinese nor the USG had been members of the WGIG but the US Statement came out two weeks after WGIG finished its work (at the isolated Chateau) and two weeks before WGIG presented its results to the public. Well timed!
 
The outcome of the "hidden deal" was that China was silent during the following PrepCom3 in September 2005. This misguided the EU. The EU was waiting for a Chinese-US battle over "private sector vs. governmental leadership" and prepared a "new cooperation model" in form of a private-public partnership as a compromise. The irony was that there was nothing to compromise anymore between US and China (China got para. 63 and US para. 55). 
 
When the EU proposed its prepared "new cooperation model" (which gave governments a role on the level of principle and the private sector the leadership for the day-to-day-opreration) PrepCom3 was pulled into a EU-US conflict. The EU proposal looked like the creation of an intergovernmental Internet council and it got support from Syria, Cuba, Russia, Iran and others (not from China). Ther US opposed it and the EU could not explain where the "level of principle" ended and the day-to-day operation starts (Is the introduction of new gTLD a question for the "level of principle" or is it a "day-to-day operation"?). 
 
The outcome is well known: Instead of a "new cooperation model" (as proposed by the EU) we got a "process of enhanced cooperation". Voila! Welcome backl!   
 
WCIT is different but it circles around the same key question: National sovereignty in cyberspace. As the Chinese vice-minister has defined this in his speech in Budapest in October 2012 he sees "cybersovereignty" as the "key principle" for Internet Governance and as "an extension of national sovereignty into cyberspace".
 
What does this mean?  Sovereignty in international law is defined by sovereingty of a territory. How the borderless cyberspace fits into this concept? 
 
The Russian have a slightly different but similar approach. They use the terminolgy of the "national Internet segment" which also starts with an extended understanding of "national sovereignty". 
 
This different approaches to the understanding of national sovereignty in cyberpace has indeed the potential to escalate into something like a virtual cold war. This is the geo-political layer. But this conflict is now overlapped by two other layers of conflicts: One is the economic layer and the conflict between the old new economy (telcos, publishers, broadcasters etc.) and the new new economy (search engines, social networks, cloud computing etc.). And there is a social layer which is the conflict about sharing of policy development and decision making in a multistakeholder model among governments, private sector and civil socviety (within western democracies).  

With other words, we will see a growing set of conflicts around IG within the next five yers and a lot of (issue based) rainbow coalitions. This goes beyond the "black or white scheme" of the first cold war of the 1950s/1980s.
 
An interesting proof of this layered mix of interests and constellation came ot from the consultations civil society had with the US government (Ambassador Kremer and Larry Strickling) when civil society argued that they are WITH the USG in the ITR negotiations but AGAINST the USG in the ACTA negotiations. 
 
No stable partnerships. It depends from the issue. It starts from values and interests.
 
My two cents.
 
Wolfgang    
 
 
________________________________

Fra: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org på vegne af Nick Ashton-Hart
Sendt: ti 12-02-2013 07:36
Til: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well)
Cc: Philipp Mirtl
Emne: Re: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"


I have to say, the whole Cold War analogy post-WCIT is grossly overbaked IMO. I can tell you it is seen as a joke in Geneva amongst delegations (including amongst those accused of being the protagonists/antagonists).


--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart

Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling.

On 11 Feb 2013, at 16:22, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:



	Hi Philipp,
	
	Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend is indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the creeping cyberwar ?
	
	Best, Louis
	- - -
	
	
	On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at> wrote:
	

		Dear list members,

		

		For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently published commentary on WCIT-12: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.

		

		The abstract reads as follows:

		

		The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the February 1945 meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning of a long Internet Cold War between authoritarian and liberal-democratic countries. The battles over Internet governance that surfaced at WCIT are not just about competing visions of the Internet, with one side favoring openness and the other security. They are also about two different visions of political power one in which that power is increasingly distributed and includes non-state actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the Yalta Conference, Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes: first, they allowed naive statements of wishful thinking to supplant actual realities on the ground. Second, they overlooked the risk inherent in permitting ambiguous definitions. Both of these mistakes may have been repeated at WCIT.

		

		Best regards,

		

		

		Philipp Mirtl

		

		Fellow / Adviser

		sterreichisches Institut fr Internationale Politik (oiip)

		Austrian Institute for International Affairs

		Berggasse 7

		A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA

		Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29

		Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10

		E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at <mailto:philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at> 

		Website: www.oiip.ac.at <http://www.oiip.ac.at/> 


	____________________________________________________________
	You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
	governance at lists.igcaucus.org
	To be removed from the list, visit:
	http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
	
	For all other list information and functions, see:
	http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
	To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
	http://www.igcaucus.org/
	
	Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
	


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

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

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Feb 12 06:10:50 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:10:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] WTPF
References: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local>
 <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <-8965642324291932599@unknownmsgid>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013315E2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013315E5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Here is the link to the Draft Opiniions for the WTPF in Geneva, May 2013.
 
Wolfgang
 
http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx <http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx> 
 

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

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

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

From nne75 at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 12 06:18:05 2013
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:18:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] WTPF update.
Message-ID: <1360667885.97849.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>



 The draft Opinions agreed at the 3rd IEG meeting have been posted on the IEG website: http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/ieg.aspx. 


All of the  documents are public

Nnenna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/3c0f9267/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Feb 12 08:07:25 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:37:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>

Norbert / All

Thanks for bringing these inputs and/or proposed changes to the 
statement to the elist. In fact I prefer that all substantial inputs/ 
proposed changes are made on this list, and not just on the web page... 
It helps engage others to comment, and may be, without suggesting that 
anyone is being irresponsible, increases the sense of responsibility  of 
whoever makes suggestions for changes. As argued earlier deliberative 
democracy is the key legitimacy of civil society, and I have found that 
inputting in the ensconced solitude of writing comments on editable web 
pages is often not the best way to promote deliberative democracy.

May I request that from now on whoever wants to make substantial 
amendments to the proposed statements also sends an email to this group 
about it - preferably with some amount of due reasoning.

parminder


On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
>> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
>> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
>> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
> A number of comments have been made that we now need to resolve. In the
> following, I will give, for each of the paragraphs, the comment, and
> then propose a resolution.
>
> If from your perspective either the current text or the proposed
> resolution is not acceptable, please say so by Wednesday Feb 13, 23.59
> PST. If we get opposition to both variants, the coordinators may be
> forced to make a rough consensus call or, in the worst case, drop the
> conflicted paragraph from the statement in its entirety. Let's try to
> avoid that eventuality.
>
> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>
> Paragraph 3
> ===========
> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
> It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>
> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
> does it “really need to do”?"
>
> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
> of."
>
> Paragraph 12
> ============
> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
> also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
> real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
>
> Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
> overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
> stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
>
> Paragraphs 13 + 14
> ==================
> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
> members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
> with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
> Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
> consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
> reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
> across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
> resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
> openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
> treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
> interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
> community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
> so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
> Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>
> Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
> main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
> "There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
> voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
> times."
>
> Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
> reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the number
> of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main session topics
> should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the
> tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions
> held at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those
> who have been heard from many times."
>
> Paragraphs 21 and 22
> ====================
> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
> to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
> Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
> as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
> commitments on Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the
> next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
> analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
> the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>
> Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
> Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
> choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
> lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific public
> comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting
> to decide on topics and format."
>
> Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
> specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
> Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG to
> proceed unfortunately."
>
> Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
> which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
> also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
>
> Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
> paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
> suggestions to that effect."
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and the
> review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why
> not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for development?"
>
> Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
> of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
> very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
> Action Plan (2003)"
>
> Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
> aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of
> the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
> “governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
> question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
> rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
> [The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
> Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in Bali.]
> [Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium Development Goals
> are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the
> discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003
> could be looked at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of
> IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and
> format."
>
> Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
> object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.
>
> Paragraph 36
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
>
> Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
>
> Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
> unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
> connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide, you
> need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
>
> Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
> and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
> logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
> stakeholders can comment."
>
> Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
> paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
> connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
> public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
>
> Any missed comments???
> ======================
> If I've missed any comments (that were posted by the deadline) please
> repost them ASAP, together with a proposed resolution.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>


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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Feb 12 08:16:01 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:46:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <511A4091.703@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
>> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
>> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
>> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
>> <snip>

>> Paragraph 12
>> ============
>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>>
>> Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
>> also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
>> real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
Nick, IGF is a serious place for policy deliberations, it does not exist 
to offer 'interesting' things to people. You attend WIPO meeting, how 
many themes there makes 'direct' sense to common people. Has anyone for 
that reason argued to take the serious subjects that WIPO regularly 
deals with off the table? The WSIS mandate on the IGf is clear, and the 
recs of the WG on IGF improvements are even clearer..... the IGF has to 
address focussed policy issues and questions, not indulge in 
generalities. And, excuse me to say so,  a topis like "How can IG 
benefit users wordwide' is as unfocussed a theme as one can be... What 
really does it convey? What do you propose to achieve at the IGF under 
that theme.

I strongly suggest that we put forward focussed clear themes that helps 
IGF address its mandate of a serious policy dialogue, something which it 
has been refraining from doing till now.

Hence, I am unable to agree to the IGC proposing such a general theme as 
'How can IG benefit users wordwide'.

rgds, parminder


>>
>> Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
>> overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
>> stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
>>
>> Paragraphs 13 + 14
>> ==================
>> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
>> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
>> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
>> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
>> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
>> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
>> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
>> members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
>> with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
>> Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
>> consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
>> reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
>> across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
>> resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
>> openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
>> treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
>> interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
>> community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
>> so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
>> Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>>
>> Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
>> main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
>> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
>>
>> Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
>> "There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
>> voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
>> times."
>>
>> Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
>> reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the number
>> of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main session topics
>> should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the
>> tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions
>> held at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those
>> who have been heard from many times."
>>
>> Paragraphs 21 and 22
>> ====================
>> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
>> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
>> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
>> to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
>> Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
>> as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
>> commitments on Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the
>> next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
>> analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
>> the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>>
>> Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
>> Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
>> choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
>> lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific public
>> comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting
>> to decide on topics and format."
>>
>> Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
>> specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
>> Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG to
>> proceed unfortunately."
>>
>> Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
>> which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
>> also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
>>
>> Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
>> paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
>> suggestions to that effect."
>>
>> Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and the
>> review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why
>> not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for development?"
>>
>> Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
>> of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
>> very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
>> Action Plan (2003)"
>>
>> Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
>> aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of
>> the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
>> “governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
>> question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
>> rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
>> [The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
>> Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in Bali.]
>> [Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium Development Goals
>> are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the
>> discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003
>> could be looked at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of
>> IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and
>> format."
>>
>> Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
>> object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.
>>
>> Paragraph 36
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
>> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
>>
>> Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
>>
>> Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
>> unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
>> connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide, you
>> need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
>>
>> Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
>> and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
>> logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
>> stakeholders can comment."
>>
>> Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
>> paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
>> connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
>> public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
>>
>> Any missed comments???
>> ======================
>> If I've missed any comments (that were posted by the deadline) please
>> repost them ASAP, together with a proposed resolution.
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>


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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Feb 12 08:21:03 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:51:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <511A41BF.1090409@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
>> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
>> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
>> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
> Paragraphs 21 and 22
> ====================
> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
> to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
> Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
> as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
> commitments on Internet Governance Principles.
A 'MS framework of commitments of IG principles' was just one of the 
several proposals on the way/ manner to go forward with developing 
Internet principles, and the nature of the ultimate output of the 
process. There are many others. I do not agree to use one specific 
proposal in this direction in the common IGC proposal... There are 
people for instance who have at earlier times sought a framework 
convention on the Internet (ITfC, IGP, APC). So lets not associate our 
statement with one particular approach, about which, for one, I have 
specific and clear reservations.

parminder

>   Bali has to take the
> next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
> analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
> the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>
> Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
> Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
> choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
> lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific public
> comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting
> to decide on topics and format."
>
> Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
> specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
> Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG to
> proceed unfortunately."
>
> Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
> which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
> also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
>
> Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
> paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
> suggestions to that effect."
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and the
> review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why
> not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for development?"
>
> Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
> of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
> very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
> Action Plan (2003)"
>
> Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
> aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of
> the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
> “governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
> question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
> rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
> [The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
> Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in Bali.]
> [Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium Development Goals
> are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the
> discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003
> could be looked at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of
> IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and
> format."
>
> Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
> object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.
>
> Paragraph 36
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
>
> Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
>
> Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
> unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
> connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide, you
> need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
>
> Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
> and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
> logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
> stakeholders can comment."
>
> Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
> paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
> connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
> public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
>
> Any missed comments???
> ======================
> If I've missed any comments (that were posted by the deadline) please
> repost them ASAP, together with a proposed resolution.
>
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>


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

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Feb 12 08:42:11 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:42:11 +0800
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <511A4091.703@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A4091.703@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <6526C221-FF29-4849-8EA5-FEA4655A9A28@ciroap.org>

On 12/02/2013, at 9:16 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Hence, I am unable to agree to the IGC proposing such a general theme as 'How can IG benefit users wordwide'.


I broadly agree, this strikes me as the kind of do-nothing theme that the ITU would come up with, and I would like us to show that the IGF is no longer willing to be a do-nothing institution.  It's do or die time for the IGF and we, of all stakeholders groups, need to make sure that the theme is focussed on actual IG problems, and the lack of meaningful participation of all stakeholders in IG processes is one of them.  This will make a good contrast with the banality and backward-lookingness (lookingness?) of the ITU's draft Opinions for the WTPF.

(IG = Internet governance, ITU = International Telecommunications Union, WTPF = World Telecommunications Policy Forum)

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

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

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/17f818fd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Feb 12 09:01:16 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:01:16 +0900
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Parminder.  Agreed.

Adam



On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, parminder wrote:

> Norbert / All
>
> Thanks for bringing these inputs and/or proposed changes to the statement
> to the elist. In fact I prefer that all substantial inputs/ proposed
> changes are made on this list, and not just on the web page... It helps
> engage others to comment, and may be, without suggesting that anyone is
> being irresponsible, increases the sense of responsibility  of whoever
> makes suggestions for changes. As argued earlier deliberative democracy is
> the key legitimacy of civil society, and I have found that inputting in the
> ensconced solitude of writing comments on editable web pages is often not
> the best way to promote deliberative democracy.
>
> May I request that from now on whoever wants to make substantial
> amendments to the proposed statements also sends an email to this group
> about it - preferably with some amount of due reasoning.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
>
> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
>
> A number of comments have been made that we now need to resolve. In the
> following, I will give, for each of the paragraphs, the comment, and
> then propose a resolution.
>
> If from your perspective either the current text or the proposed
> resolution is not acceptable, please say so by Wednesday Feb 13, 23.59
> PST. If we get opposition to both variants, the coordinators may be
> forced to make a rough consensus call or, in the worst case, drop the
> conflicted paragraph from the statement in its entirety. Let's try to
> avoid that eventuality.
>
> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/**digressit/archives/107<http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107>
>
> Paragraph 3
> ===========
> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
> It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>
> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
> does it “really need to do”?"
>
> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
> of."
>
> Paragraph 12
> ============
> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
> also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
> real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
>
> Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
> overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
> stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
>
> Paragraphs 13 + 14
> ==================
> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
> members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
> with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
> Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
> consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
> reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
> across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
> resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
> openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
> treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
> interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
> community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
> so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
> Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>
> Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
> main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
> "There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
> voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
> times."
>
> Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
> reduction of the number of main
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/e8a9d6ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Tue Feb 12 10:08:09 2013
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:08:09 -0500
Subject: SV: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013315E2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A07BB8C4@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> <CA+EjHYrPq802_LM4hW-zNHccZMMX-pH3xhsH-3vy-tpoTFW1Xw@mail.gmail.com> <-8965642324291932599@unknownmsgid> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013315E2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <3C224649-B8C7-42D9-A162-FA38877C846D@post.harvard.edu>

Wolfgang's narrative is most helpful, insightful - and enjoyed.  Thanks.

There is a larger context, in the history.  The struggle over whether  
the 'ITU gets the Internet' goes back, at least a decade before WSIS  
was even a gleam in the eye ...  A Cold War, just precipitated?  WCIT  
is only the latest eruption - over a couple decades plus now, one  
where 'our side' did not come out in the majority.  Stay tuned for  
next rounds.  Better yet, get out in front of it, thoughtfully.

History  matters, as Wolfgang's makes clear.  Equally, seeing that  
history it its full sweep.  If there is to be prospect for decent  
outcomes, anyway.

David

On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> Hi
>
> in my eyes, the "Digital Yalta" was in summer 2005 when the USG  
> government published its four IG principles and recognized the  
> "sovereignty" over ccTLDs and got in compensation from China the  
> acceptance (for the time being) of the management of the A-Root  
> Server for the global Internet. So the "deal" was: "If you recognize  
> our sovereignty over our national space we can live we with the  
> global management mechanism as it has emerged from history".
>
> Neither the Chinese nor the USG had been members of the WGIG but the  
> US Statement came out two weeks after WGIG finished its work (at the  
> isolated Chateau) and two weeks before WGIG presented its results to  
> the public. Well timed!
>
> The outcome of the "hidden deal" was that China was silent during  
> the following PrepCom3 in September 2005. This misguided the EU. The  
> EU was waiting for a Chinese-US battle over "private sector vs.  
> governmental leadership" and prepared a "new cooperation model" in  
> form of a private-public partnership as a compromise. The irony was  
> that there was nothing to compromise anymore between US and China  
> (China got para. 63 and US para. 55).
>
> When the EU proposed its prepared "new cooperation model" (which  
> gave governments a role on the level of principle and the private  
> sector the leadership for the day-to-day-opreration) PrepCom3 was  
> pulled into a EU-US conflict. The EU proposal looked like the  
> creation of an intergovernmental Internet council and it got support  
> from Syria, Cuba, Russia, Iran and others (not from China). Ther US  
> opposed it and the EU could not explain where the "level of  
> principle" ended and the day-to-day operation starts (Is the  
> introduction of new gTLD a question for the "level of principle" or  
> is it a "day-to-day operation"?).
>
> The outcome is well known: Instead of a "new cooperation model" (as  
> proposed by the EU) we got a "process of enhanced cooperation".  
> Voila! Welcome backl!
>
> WCIT is different but it circles around the same key question:  
> National sovereignty in cyberspace. As the Chinese vice-minister has  
> defined this in his speech in Budapest in October 2012 he sees  
> "cybersovereignty" as the "key principle" for Internet Governance  
> and as "an extension of national sovereignty into cyberspace".
>
> What does this mean?  Sovereignty in international law is defined by  
> sovereingty of a territory. How the borderless cyberspace fits into  
> this concept?
>
> The Russian have a slightly different but similar approach. They use  
> the terminolgy of the "national Internet segment" which also starts  
> with an extended understanding of "national sovereignty".
>
> This different approaches to the understanding of national  
> sovereignty in cyberpace has indeed the potential to escalate into  
> something like a virtual cold war. This is the geo-political layer.  
> But this conflict is now overlapped by two other layers of  
> conflicts: One is the economic layer and the conflict between the  
> old new economy (telcos, publishers, broadcasters etc.) and the new  
> new economy (search engines, social networks, cloud computing etc.).  
> And there is a social layer which is the conflict about sharing of  
> policy development and decision making in a multistakeholder model  
> among governments, private sector and civil socviety (within western  
> democracies).
>
> With other words, we will see a growing set of conflicts around IG  
> within the next five yers and a lot of (issue based) rainbow  
> coalitions. This goes beyond the "black or white scheme" of the  
> first cold war of the 1950s/1980s.
>
> An interesting proof of this layered mix of interests and  
> constellation came ot from the consultations civil society had with  
> the US government (Ambassador Kremer and Larry Strickling) when  
> civil society argued that they are WITH the USG in the ITR  
> negotiations but AGAINST the USG in the ACTA negotiations.
>
> No stable partnerships. It depends from the issue. It starts from  
> values and interests.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org på vegne af Nick Ashton- 
> Hart
> Sendt: ti 12-02-2013 07:36
> Til: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well)
> Cc: Philipp Mirtl
> Emne: Re: [governance] CNAS Commentary: "The Internet Yalta"
>
>
> I have to say, the whole Cold War analogy post-WCIT is grossly  
> overbaked IMO. I can tell you it is seen as a joke in Geneva amongst  
> delegations (including amongst those accused of being the  
> protagonists/antagonists).
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Nick Ashton-Hart
>
> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic  
> mangling.
>
> On 11 Feb 2013, at 16:22, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com>  
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 	Hi Philipp,
> 	
> 	Congrats for your very perceptive analysis. The fragmentation trend  
> is indeed on the ground already. Do you have any comments on the  
> creeping cyberwar ?
> 	
> 	Best, Louis
> 	- - -
> 	
> 	
> 	On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Philipp Mirtl <Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at 
> > wrote:
> 	
>
> 		Dear list members,
>
> 		
>
> 		For those who are interested, I forward you the link to a recently  
> published commentary on WCIT-12: http://www.cnas.org/theinternetyalta.
>
> 		
>
> 		The abstract reads as follows:
>
> 		
>
> 		The December 2012 meeting of the World Conference on International  
> Telecommunications (WCIT) may be the digital equivalent of the  
> February 1945 meeting of the Allied powers in Yalta: the beginning  
> of a long Internet Cold War between authoritarian and liberal- 
> democratic countries. The battles over Internet governance that  
> surfaced at WCIT are not just about competing visions of the  
> Internet, with one side favoring openness and the other security.  
> They are also about two different visions of political power one in  
> which that power is increasingly distributed and includes non-state  
> actors, and one in which state power is dominant. At the Yalta  
> Conference, Western democracies made two fundamental mistakes:  
> first, they allowed naive statements of wishful thinking to supplant  
> actual realities on the ground. Second, they overlooked the risk  
> inherent in permitting ambiguous definitions. Both of these mistakes  
> may have been repeated at WCIT.
>
> 		
>
> 		Best regards,
>
> 		
>
> 		
>
> 		Philipp Mirtl
>
> 		
>
> 		Fellow / Adviser
>
> 		sterreichisches Institut fr Internationale Politik (oiip)
>
> 		Austrian Institute for International Affairs
>
> 		Berggasse 7
>
> 		A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA
>
> 		Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29
>
> 		Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10
>
> 		E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at <mailto:philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at>
>
> 		Website: www.oiip.ac.at <http://www.oiip.ac.at/>
>
>
> 	____________________________________________________________
> 	You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> 	governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> 	To be removed from the list, visit:
> 	http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 	
> 	For all other list information and functions, see:
> 	http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> 	To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> 	http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 	
> 	Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 	
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 Feb 12 10:26:34 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:56:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution, consultation and MAG
 meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04E661B0-D1D1-414B-8473-EA3D487F04AD@hserus.net>

+1 to this and to Jeremy's comment

--srs (iPad)

On 12-Feb-2013, at 19:31, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Thanks Parminder.  Agreed. 
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, parminder wrote:
>> Norbert / All
>> 
>> Thanks for bringing these inputs and/or proposed changes to the statement to the elist. In fact I prefer that all substantial inputs/ proposed changes are made on this list, and not just on the web page... It helps engage others to comment, and may be, without suggesting that anyone is being irresponsible, increases the sense of responsibility  of whoever makes suggestions for changes. As argued earlier deliberative democracy is the key legitimacy of civil society, and I have found that inputting in the ensconced solitude of writing comments on editable web pages is often not the best way to promote deliberative democracy.
>> 
>> May I request that from now on whoever wants to make substantial amendments to the proposed statements also sends an email to this group about it - preferably with some amount of due reasoning.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>> 
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
>> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
>> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
>> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
>> A number of comments have been made that we now need to resolve. In the
>> following, I will give, for each of the paragraphs, the comment, and
>> then propose a resolution.
>> 
>> If from your perspective either the current text or the proposed
>> resolution is not acceptable, please say so by Wednesday Feb 13, 23.59
>> PST. If we get opposition to both variants, the coordinators may be
>> forced to make a rough consensus call or, in the worst case, drop the
>> conflicted paragraph from the statement in its entirety. Let's try to
>> avoid that eventuality.
>> 
>> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>> 
>> Paragraph 3
>> ===========
>> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
>> It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>> 
>> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>> does it “really need to do”?"
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> of."
>> 
>> Paragraph 12
>> ============
>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>> 
>> Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
>> also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
>> real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
>> overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
>> stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
>> 
>> Paragraphs 13 + 14
>> ==================
>> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
>> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
>> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
>> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
>> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
>> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
>> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
>> members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
>> with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
>> Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
>> consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
>> reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
>> across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
>> resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
>> openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
>> treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
>> interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
>> community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
>> so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
>> Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>> 
>> Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
>> main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
>> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
>> 
>> Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
>> "There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
>> voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
>> times."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
>> reduction of the number of main
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/f1cb35d5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Tue Feb 12 10:43:31 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:43:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>

I tend to think that making the changes and comment in one place should be sufficient.

if we have people in this caucus that do not accept tools other than email, so be it, but insinuating (even if done with a caveat) that it is irresponsible to use just the web interface is unpleasant at best.

We have co-coordinators and people holding proverbial pens, and position can be challenged on the list.  who knows, maybe someone other than the original author will have the justification.

avri

On 12 Feb 2013, at 09:01, Adam Peake wrote:

> Thanks Parminder.  Agreed. 
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, parminder wrote:
> Norbert / All
> 
> Thanks for bringing these inputs and/or proposed changes to the statement to the elist. In fact I prefer that all substantial inputs/ proposed changes are made on this list, and not just on the web page... It helps engage others to comment, and may be, without suggesting that anyone is being irresponsible, increases the sense of responsibility  of whoever makes suggestions for changes. As argued earlier deliberative democracy is the key legitimacy of civil society, and I have found that inputting in the ensconced solitude of writing comments on editable web pages is often not the best way to promote deliberative democracy.
> 
> May I request that from now on whoever wants to make substantial amendments to the proposed statements also sends an email to this group about it - preferably with some amount of due reasoning.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
> 
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
> A number of comments have been made that we now need to resolve. In the
> following, I will give, for each of the paragraphs, the comment, and
> then propose a resolution.
> 
> If from your perspective either the current text or the proposed
> resolution is not acceptable, please say so by Wednesday Feb 13, 23.59
> PST. If we get opposition to both variants, the coordinators may be
> forced to make a rough consensus call or, in the worst case, drop the
> conflicted paragraph from the statement in its entirety. Let's try to
> avoid that eventuality.
> 
> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
> 
> Paragraph 3
> ===========
> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
> It is time to do what it really needed to do."
> 
> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
> does it “really need to do”?"
> 
> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
> of."
> 
> Paragraph 12
> ============
> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
> 
> Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
> also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
> real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
> 
> Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
> overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
> stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
> 
> Paragraphs 13 + 14
> ==================
> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
> members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
> with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
> Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
> consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
> reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
> across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
> resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
> openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
> treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
> interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
> community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
> so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
> Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
> 
> Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
> main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
> 
> Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
> "There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
> voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
> times."
> 
> Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
> reduction of the number of main
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Tue Feb 12 11:16:24 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:16:24 -0500
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C17E0A7C-3411-4ED8-9077-D07DD9ED71A4@acm.org>


On 12 Feb 2013, at 09:01, Adam Peake wrote:

> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107


but i just noticed that many of the comments i inserted in this area just disappear.

i give up.

avri


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

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

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

From avri at ella.com  Tue Feb 12 11:29:11 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:29:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
Message-ID: <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>



I put them back,  this time they seem to have stuck.

cheers

avri

On 12 Feb 2013, at 10:43, Avri Doria wrote:

> I tend to think that making the changes and comment in one place should be sufficient.
> 
> if we have people in this caucus that do not accept tools other than email, so be it, but insinuating (even if done with a caveat) that it is irresponsible to use just the web interface is unpleasant at best.
> 
> We have co-coordinators and people holding proverbial pens, and position can be challenged on the list.  who knows, maybe someone other than the original author will have the justification.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 12 Feb 2013, at 09:01, Adam Peake wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Parminder.  Agreed. 
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, parminder wrote:
>> Norbert / All
>> 
>> Thanks for bringing these inputs and/or proposed changes to the statement to the elist. In fact I prefer that all substantial inputs/ proposed changes are made on this list, and not just on the web page... It helps engage others to comment, and may be, without suggesting that anyone is being irresponsible, increases the sense of responsibility  of whoever makes suggestions for changes. As argued earlier deliberative democracy is the key legitimacy of civil society, and I have found that inputting in the ensconced solitude of writing comments on editable web pages is often not the best way to promote deliberative democracy.
>> 
>> May I request that from now on whoever wants to make substantial amendments to the proposed statements also sends an email to this group about it - preferably with some amount of due reasoning.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>> 
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
>> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
>> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
>> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
>> A number of comments have been made that we now need to resolve. In the
>> following, I will give, for each of the paragraphs, the comment, and
>> then propose a resolution.
>> 
>> If from your perspective either the current text or the proposed
>> resolution is not acceptable, please say so by Wednesday Feb 13, 23.59
>> PST. If we get opposition to both variants, the coordinators may be
>> forced to make a rough consensus call or, in the worst case, drop the
>> conflicted paragraph from the statement in its entirety. Let's try to
>> avoid that eventuality.
>> 
>> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>> 
>> Paragraph 3
>> ===========
>> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
>> It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>> 
>> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>> does it “really need to do”?"
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> of."
>> 
>> Paragraph 12
>> ============
>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>> 
>> Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
>> also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
>> real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
>> overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
>> stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
>> 
>> Paragraphs 13 + 14
>> ==================
>> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
>> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
>> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
>> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
>> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
>> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
>> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
>> members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
>> with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
>> Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
>> consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
>> reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
>> across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
>> resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
>> openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
>> treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
>> interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
>> community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
>> so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
>> Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>> 
>> Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
>> main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
>> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
>> 
>> Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
>> "There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
>> voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
>> times."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
>> reduction of the number of main
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Feb 12 14:19:24 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:19:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
Message-ID: <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC Coordinator hat on]

Sigh. I had hoped that with the Feb 7 announcement of the Feb 10
internal deadline for raising new substantive issues / change requests,
we'd now be able to proceed in an orderly manner to "resolve the
comments", i.e. reach consensus on an acceptable path forward for
each of the issues raised in those comments.

However it now appears to me that I had not communicated this process
and the meaning of that deadline clearly enough.

This lack of sufficient clarity of the process was in particular in
regard to the changes that were made to the draft text, well before that
deadline, on the basis of online comments.

I do not think that there's anything fundamentally wrong with the
process that I've been trying to implement here, of having relatively
informal online editing followed by a formal call, with a deadline, to
raise any issues about the text that has resulted from the informal
process, and then having a consensus-oriented process to resolve the
issues that have been raised.

But it is clear now that I had not made this process clear enough.

Therefore, the internal deadline for raising new substantive issues /
change requests is hereby extended to Feb 13 noon UTC.

That is now an absolutely hard deadline. Even if we can get a small
extension of our Feb 14 deadline (I'm going to ask), I'll insist that
after that cut-off time, any new concerns that anyone might want to
raise about the draft statement must be ignored. Actually, after just
reading what it says on the IGF website, "Contributions should be
emailed to igf at unog.ch before 14 February 2013." would taken literally
mean that the deadline is February 13. I'll ask about that too.

In any case time is now really short until we must submit our statement.

Please let's make this a constructive consensus process, and let's try
very hard to move all outstanding issues to a reasonably good
resolution asap.

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Feb 12 17:48:27 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 23:48:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC Coordinator hat on]

See below for my current list of issues that we need to resolve, most
still open, one of them (Nick's comment on paragraph 12) I'll consider
closed as of this posting.

I'll hopefully get an answer tomorrow on whether we can get an
extension of the Feb 14 deadline. Depending on that answer I'll set
internal deadlines for
- providing a specific textual change suggestion for the comments
  marked "Please propose specific text.",
- proposing improved resolutions,
- formally objecting to proposed resolutions,
- formally objecting to the current draft text regarding points for
  which alternatives have been suggested.

The decision process is going to be:
- Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current text
  of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
- If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
  the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
- If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects 
  to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
  proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
  current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
  unchanged in that regard.
- If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
  resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
  improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft text
  regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
  will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
  try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
  charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
  enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)

Greetings,
Norbert


All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107


Paragraph 1
===========
Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the way
forward:"

Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how these
comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words on the
process that was followed."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph will
be added.


Paragraph 2
===========
Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
IGF Improvements"

Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the IGF
particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
implemented."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 3
===========
Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
It is time to do what it really needed to do."

McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
does it “really need to do”?"

Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
of."


Paragraph 4
===========
Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"

Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF itself
aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review them and
should put out a call for consultations. After that consultation, then
the MAG should decide on what to implement and what not to implement."

Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.



Paragraph 10
============
Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013 IGF:
“How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of
the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms and institutions
involved in this process?”

Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do not
see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not agree
on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle, more
that it already is?"

Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is not
clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
develop a shared understanding."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 12 / Nick's comment
=============================
Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."

Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"

Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."

IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT THERE IS NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS PROPOSED
RESOLUTION. IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY DECLARED REJECTED. SINCE THE
COMMENT EXPLICITLY NOTED THAT THE SUGGESTION OF THE CURRENT TEXT IS
ACCEPTABLE, THE ISSUE IS THEREFORE CLOSED. 


Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
=============================
Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."

Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
on Human Rights as a general theme?"

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Nick's comment
===================================
Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"

Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."

Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
"There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
times."

Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the number
of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main session topics
should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the
tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions
held at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those
who have been heard from many times."


Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Arvi's comment
===================================
Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"

Current text of paragraph 14, with the possible change from the above
proposed resolution added in brackets: "Even then a reduction of the
number of main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is
necessary. The specific choice of main session topics should vary year
by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues
everywhere. [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous
IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those who have been
heard from many times.]"

Avri has attached the following comment to paragraph 13: "I disagree, I
value the vary full schedule that give people a maximum choice. I know
some peopel would like to create an artificial shorage of sessions so
that their session gets greater traffic, but I prefer to see as many
different topics and themes covers and suggest that we continue to fill
all the room with worthwhile sessions. Yes, there should be an effort
to not schedule similar topic against each other so that people can
follw a thread, but I do not beleive that main sessions should be given
any priority over workshops. Personally I think it is unfortunate that
so much time is spent in main sessions and would prefer to see the
meeting limited to just 3 main sessions and then many workshops."

Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
should limit the number of workshops, remove the text relating to
that point, resulting in the following text for paragraph 14, with the
possible change from the above proposed resolution added in brackets:
"Even then a reduction of the number of main sessions is necessary. The
specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere.
[There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
times.]"


Paragraph 15
============
Current text of paragraph 15: "The formats of the main sessions should
be varied more. 3 hours is generally too long, some were poorly
attended in Baku and there were many grumbled complaints about poor
content, poor preparation, repeating issues from previous years, etc.
Some main sessions need better preparation (and some were good –
transcripts illustrate the differences), the MAG has an important fole
to fulfil in regarding to ensuring good main sessions. Invite speakers
early.  Find funds to support speakers. Planning of the sessions should
be more open and transparent."

Avri has commented: "The reason main session are ignored is because
they are old fashioned pabulum spooning opportunities. They are too big
for real participation by attendees, so they end up panels that seem to
even bore many of the panelists"

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 16
============
Current text of paragraph 16: "It would be good to have one main
session with a completely different outcome-oriented format that is
more actively facilitated, for example a “speed dialogue” or a
“moderated debate”. Amongst the most important foundations for this
sort of format is that the participants need to be empowered (ie. they
will produce something at the end), and that the power imbalances
between them are eliminated for the duration of the exercise (through
the way in which the process is facilitated)."

Avri has commented: "I think this is fine for workshop and even for
part of amin session, but fear a whole main session of this would just
be a garble."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 17
============
Current text of paragraph 17: "Taking stock and emerging issues:  Mix
the two sessions, that then justifies 3 hours.  This will probably be
best held on the final morning (i.e. emerging issues become issues the
IGF thinks emerging as important for the coming year(s))."

Avri has commented: "I think taking stick is relatively unimportant
since it is really just self aggrandizement. I think the emerging
issues is possible the most important and relevant of the main session
and should be one of the list bringing together all the emerging issues
that have come up during the week and those which were still not
advanced enough to be covered."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 19
============
Current text of paragraph 19: "Critical Internet Resources was a strong
session in Baku, this justifies 3 hours.  Keep this."

Avri has commented: "I think this may be getting old. I think that if
it becomes a review of the existing mechanisms, it may be worth doing,
but just to say the same things over and over and over year after year
after year is just unproductive."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 20
============
Current text of paragraph 20: "New theme: Enhanced Cooperation.
Sessions in mixed formats over 1 day, e.g. Morning expert panel session
2 hours. Follow by a long break where people encouraged to join
self-organizing small groups (there probably needs to be active
facilitation of the process to encourage small groups to form with a
good mix of stakeholder categories) to discuss a few set questions and
ideas from the morning panel. Afternoon, 2 hour moderated session with
audience only, no panel/experts etc.  Bring back comments from the
small groups."

Avri has commented: "I agree that this is a good direction to go in and
should be one of the two major focuses of the upcoming IGF – other than
Human Rights."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 21 / suggestion to not reference "MS framework of commitments"
========================================================================
Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
commitments on Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the
next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"

Parminder commented: "A 'MS framework of commitments of IG principles'
was just one of the several proposals on the way/ manner to go forward
with developing Internet principles, and the nature of the ultimate
output of the process. There are many others. I do not agree to use one
specific proposal in this direction in the common IGC proposal... There
are people for instance who have at earlier times sought a framework 
convention on the Internet (ITfC, IGP, APC). So lets not associate our 
statement with one particular approach, about which, for one, I have 
specific and clear reservations."

Proposed resolution: Remove the implied endorsement of the "MS framework
of commitments", resulting in the following new text for paragraph 21:
"New theme: Internet rights and principles. One day, perhaps same
format as suggested for enhanced cooperation.  Or try something
different. There was a proposal in Baku to summarize all
(national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on Principles” (25+) of
the last three years and to produce a “compendium”. Bali has to take
the next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive
and analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this
into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"



Paragraphs 21 and 22 / suggestions to add further points
========================================================
Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
commitments on Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the
next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"

Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific public
comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting
to decide on topics and format."

Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG to
proceed unfortunately."

Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"

Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
suggestions to that effect."

Avri commented: "As part of the Human rights overal themes this seems
worth doing."

Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and the
review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why
not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for development?"

Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
Action Plan (2003)"

Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of
the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
“governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
[The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in Bali.]
[Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium Development Goals
are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the
discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003
could be looked at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of
IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and
format."

Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.


Paragraph 26
============
Current text of paragraph 26: "At the 2012 IGF, there were too many
workshops. Cut to between 80 and 100.  Make this target number known
when the call for applications is published, might be the first time
quite a large number of proposals are rejected (might think about
implications of this for the IGF), people should expect to be
disappointed"

Avri commented: "I disagree about their being too many workshops. there
should be as many workshops as there is room and good workshops. Yes
the MAG should have standards and should be strict about workshops
meeting those standards, but there should not be an artificial shortage
of opportunities for workshops."

Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
should limit the number of workshops, remove this paragraph in its
entirety. (The point about having standards and being strict about
those standards is covered in paragraph 27.)


Paragraph 28
============
Current text of paragraph 28: "For workshops, keep the current themes
(access, SOP [security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance for
development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging issues)."

Avri commented: "I think the categories should be examined. I see
little point in CIR, unless it becomes review of CIR institutions."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 29
============
Current text of paragraph 29: "Have the MAG better define Internet
Governance, how it must be considered in workshop proposals (there are
other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG issues).  Use an evaluation
form for workshops (at the moment don’t even know if a room was empty
or overflowing, simple count a good idea.)  However, indications are
that while there were too many workshops in Baku many were strong in
content, well received.  MAG should not cut what looks like a success
to favor the floundering main sessions."

Avri commented: "Internet governance is well defined between the WGIG
report, the WGIG Background report and the TA, i do not see the MAG
getting into a discussion of what Ig is? Perhaps as a workshop idea,
people can examine these many working definitions to see if there is a
cause for updating, but the MAG is not the place for this. The MAG
should be a doer, not another body on introspecting academics. thee is
a place for academic conjecture, but the MAG is not it."

Proposed resolution: Make the text of paragraph 29 clearer so
that it cannot be misunderstood as asking for a redefinition of
Internet Governance, resulting in the following new text for paragraph
29: "Clearly state in the call for workshop proposals that the
proposed workshops shall relate to Internet Governance (as the
term is defined in the WGIG report, the WGIG Background report and the
Tunis Agenda); there are other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG
issues.  Use an evaluation form for workshops (at the moment don’t
even know if a room was empty or overflowing, simple count a good
idea.)  However, indications are that while there were too many
workshops in Baku, many were strong in content, well received.  MAG
should not cut what looks like a success to favor the floundering main
sessions."


Paragraph 30
============
Current text of paragraph 30: "Merging is not the always the solution,
it’s too easy an answer for MAG in their evaluation to say merge simply
because proposals have similar words in the title.  If merging proposed
then the new workshop needs support or tendency to end up with 2
workshops in the same space (merge in name only)."

Avri commented: "Merging is rarely the solution. If two are the same
the MAG should pick one based on its objective criteria, and make them
responsible integrating what they can of the other."

Proposed resolution: Replace paragraph 30 with the text of Avri's
comment.


Paragraph 31
============
Current text of paragraph 31: "The rules for other sessions (open
forums, dynamic coalition, etc.) should be clarified."

Avri commented: "No matter how clear they are made, and they were
rather clear last year, people will abuse those definitions. the point
is for the MAG and secretariat to live up to the defintiions and
criteria."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 32
============
Current text of paragraph 32: "The IGF pre-events have to be revisited
and should receive more attention in terms of planning and projection
as  these are receiving a lot of attention by participants."

Avri commented: "And yet these need to remain separate from the IGF so
they are not reduced to lowest common form as many other session under
the auspice of the IGF are."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 36
============
Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."

Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."

Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide, you
need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."

Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
stakeholders can comment."

Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."


Paragraph 46
============
Current text of paragraph 46: "The sudden shift of Open Consultations
and MAG meetings from Geneva to France for February 2013 without open
consultation and comments from the community puts a severe logistical
pressure on participation for those that find it a challenge to already
participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain
individuals to participate that can freely move around EU but for
people that need to acquire visas to travel to Switzerland and
participate from outside of Europe are posed with a big challenge.
Should they apply to Swiss or to the French and how does one explain
why one is taking the visa of one country to participate in the other
and how does the IGF Secretariat plan to manage this?"

Avri commented: "I do not understand this. Is the problem that they
need 2 visas? that I understand. I do not understand the choice issue."

Norbert Bollow replied: "I believe the problem is in regard to people
from countries whose citizens have a hard time getting visas for
Europe. Applying for a Swiss visa will be hard to justify for attending
a meeting in Paris. On the other hand, the IGF secretariat (which
happens to be in Geneva, Switzerland) probably does not have the kind
of relationship with the French authorities that would allow it to
assist with applications for French visas."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.


Paragraph 50
============
Current text of paragraph 50: "IGF should put out a call for host
country expression of interest, with clearly laid out principles and
process for selection, instead of simply waiting for offers."

Avri commented: "ho about adding the notion of a public comment on the
applicant hosts before a desion is made. And who is to make this
decision. I beleive that is something that the MAG should make a
recommendation on to the powers that be."

Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
the draft text.





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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Tue Feb 12 18:08:16 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:08:16 -0500
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <0F74E7A9-142B-4487-AEFC-A29CE2801530@acm.org>

Hi,

Feel free to ignore anything I said based on my being late.
It was only Parminder's note that reminded me I needed to do something.

I am more than able to argue my points as an individual contributor.
Now that I have thought it through, I can write something and submit it before the deadline.

thanks


avri


On 12 Feb 2013, at 14:19, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Sigh. I had hoped that with the Feb 7 announcement of the Feb 10
> internal deadline for raising new substantive issues / change requests,
> we'd now be able to proceed in an orderly manner to "resolve the
> comments", i.e. reach consensus on an acceptable path forward for
> each of the issues raised in those comments.


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

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

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

From avri at ella.com  Tue Feb 12 18:43:55 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:43:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] Access did a good overview of the recent ITU-WTPF-IEG
 mtg
Message-ID: <2B855B7F-19BC-45E7-BE21-04D5663CF069@ella.com>

https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2013/02/08/roundup-of-informal-experts-group-final-meeting

IEG - Informal Experts Group
WTPF - World Telecommunications Policy Forum

I am also on the IEG and also participated in the meeting remotely.
Got nothing to add.

avri


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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Feb 12 18:54:20 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:54:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <0F74E7A9-142B-4487-AEFC-A29CE2801530@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0F74E7A9-142B-4487-AEFC-A29CE2801530@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130213005420.0a4e5fe6@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC Coordinator hat on]

Thanks Avri - although now that I've extended that Feb 10 internal
deadline, you're not late anymore. :-)

Greetings,
Norbert


Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Feel free to ignore anything I said based on my being late.
> It was only Parminder's note that reminded me I needed to do
> something.
> 
> I am more than able to argue my points as an individual contributor.
> Now that I have thought it through, I can write something and submit
> it before the deadline.
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 12 Feb 2013, at 14:19, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> > Sigh. I had hoped that with the Feb 7 announcement of the Feb 10
> > internal deadline for raising new substantive issues / change
> > requests, we'd now be able to proceed in an orderly manner to
> > "resolve the comments", i.e. reach consensus on an acceptable path
> > forward for each of the issues raised in those comments.
> 
> 


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 12 19:07:58 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:07:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] Access did a good overview of the recent
 ITU-WTPF-IEG mtg
In-Reply-To: <2B855B7F-19BC-45E7-BE21-04D5663CF069@ella.com>
References: <2B855B7F-19BC-45E7-BE21-04D5663CF069@ella.com>
Message-ID: <20130213010758.03d0d6d1@quill.bollow.ch>

Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2013/02/08/roundup-of-informal-experts-group-final-meeting
> 
> IEG - Informal Experts Group
> WTPF - World Telecommunications Policy Forum
> 
> I am also on the IEG and also participated in the meeting remotely.

Thank you for sharing this interesting link!

I'd be quite interested in a bit additional background info on how it
came to pass that the "DRAFT OPINION: ON SUPPORTING OPERATIONALIZING THE
ENHANCED COOPERATION PROCESS" has ended up being so brief in its main
part.

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  Tue Feb 12 21:52:53 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:52:53 -0800
Subject: [governance] RE: The new politics of the internet: Everything is
 connected | The Economist
In-Reply-To: <50EF17A9.5080208@communisphere.com>
References: <50EF17A9.5080208@communisphere.com>
Message-ID: <105901ce0995$39743fe0$ac5cbfa0$@gmail.com>

So what did they get right and what did they get wrong.

 

M

 

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

 

From: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:34 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Subject: The new politics of the internet: Everything is connected | The
Economist

 

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569041-can-internet-activism-turn-r
eal-political-movement-everything-connected

Tom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130212/2960a1a4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb 13 01:35:25 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:05:25 +0530
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
Message-ID: <511B342D.3060105@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 12 February 2013 09:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> I tend to think that making the changes and comment in one place should be sufficient.
>
> if we have people in this caucus that do not accept tools other than email, so be it, but insinuating (even if done with a caveat) that it is irresponsible to use just the web interface is unpleasant at best.

I find it unpleasant for you to suggest what you are suggesting I said 
in my email... I clearly did not say anyone had been irresponsible. I 
compared the characteristics of two kinds of public media or public 
communication, and gave my opinion that using one rather than the other 
may tend to evoke a greater sense of 'public responsibility' (as for 
instance giving a TV interview vis a vis writing a letter to the editor) 
..... I continue to believe so. And you have a right to disagree, but, 
hopefully, without raising avoidable references to 'unpleasantness' and 
making it sound personal when it is not....

parminder



>
> We have co-coordinators and people holding proverbial pens, and position can be challenged on the list.  who knows, maybe someone other than the original author will have the justification.
>
> avri
>
> On 12 Feb 2013, at 09:01, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>> Thanks Parminder.  Agreed.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, parminder wrote:
>> Norbert / All
>>
>> Thanks for bringing these inputs and/or proposed changes to the statement to the elist. In fact I prefer that all substantial inputs/ proposed changes are made on this list, and not just on the web page... It helps engage others to comment, and may be, without suggesting that anyone is being irresponsible, increases the sense of responsibility  of whoever makes suggestions for changes. As argued earlier deliberative democracy is the key legitimacy of civil society, and I have found that inputting in the ensconced solitude of writing comments on editable web pages is often not the best way to promote deliberative democracy.
>>
>> May I request that from now on whoever wants to make substantial amendments to the proposed statements also sends an email to this group about it - preferably with some amount of due reasoning.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
>> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
>> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
>> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
>> A number of comments have been made that we now need to resolve. In the
>> following, I will give, for each of the paragraphs, the comment, and
>> then propose a resolution.
>>
>> If from your perspective either the current text or the proposed
>> resolution is not acceptable, please say so by Wednesday Feb 13, 23.59
>> PST. If we get opposition to both variants, the coordinators may be
>> forced to make a rough consensus call or, in the worst case, drop the
>> conflicted paragraph from the statement in its entirety. Let's try to
>> avoid that eventuality.
>>
>> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>>
>> Paragraph 3
>> ===========
>> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
>> It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>>
>> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>> does it “really need to do”?"
>>
>> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> of."
>>
>> Paragraph 12
>> ============
>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>>
>> Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
>> also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
>> real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
>>
>> Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
>> overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
>> stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
>>
>> Paragraphs 13 + 14
>> ==================
>> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
>> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
>> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
>> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
>> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
>> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
>> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
>> members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
>> with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
>> Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
>> consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
>> reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
>> across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
>> resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
>> openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
>> treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
>> interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
>> community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
>> so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
>> Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>>
>> Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
>> main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
>> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
>>
>> Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
>> "There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
>> voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
>> times."
>>
>> Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
>> reduction of the number of main
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>


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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb 13 01:59:51 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:29:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <0F74E7A9-142B-4487-AEFC-A29CE2801530@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <0F74E7A9-142B-4487-AEFC-A29CE2801530@acm.org>
Message-ID: <511B39E7.3070804@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 13 February 2013 04:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Feel free to ignore anything I said based on my being late.
> It was only Parminder's note that reminded me I needed to do something.

So you do see that notes made on and to the list on such an important 
matters as developing a common IGC statement are rather useful, than 
just someone working in solitude typing ones ideas away on a editable 
webpage :)


> I am more than able to argue my points as an individual contributor.
> Now that I have thought it through, I can write something and submit it before the deadline.
>
> thanks
>
>
> avri
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2013, at 14:19, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>> Sigh. I had hoped that with the Feb 7 announcement of the Feb 10
>> internal deadline for raising new substantive issues / change requests,
>> we'd now be able to proceed in an orderly manner to "resolve the
>> comments", i.e. reach consensus on an acceptable path forward for
>> each of the issues raised in those comments.


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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb 13 02:55:48 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:25:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <0F74E7A9-142B-4487-AEFC-A29CE2801530@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <0F74E7A9-142B-4487-AEFC-A29CE2801530@acm.org>
Message-ID: <511B4704.7010109@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 13 February 2013 04:38 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Feel free to ignore anything I said based on my being late.
> It was only Parminder's note that reminded me I needed to do something.

So you do see that notes made on and to the list on such an important 
matters as developing a common IGC statement are rather useful, than 
just someone working in solitude typing ones ideas away on a editable 
webpage :)


>
> I am more than able to argue my points as an individual contributor.
> Now that I have thought it through, I can write something and submit it before the deadline.
>
> thanks
>
>
> avri
>
>
> On 12 Feb 2013, at 14:19, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>> Sigh. I had hoped that with the Feb 7 announcement of the Feb 10
>> internal deadline for raising new substantive issues / change requests,
>> we'd now be able to proceed in an orderly manner to "resolve the
>> comments", i.e. reach consensus on an acceptable path forward for
>> each of the issues raised in those comments.
>


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

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

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

From nashton at ccianet.org  Wed Feb 13 04:06:13 2013
From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:06:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <19499325.30322.1360710133265.JavaMail.mobile-sync@vcbt8>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <19499325.30322.1360710133265.JavaMail.mobile-sync@vcbt8>
Message-ID: <-2796851610167959962@unknownmsgid>

inline comments below.

On 12 Feb 2013, at 14:16, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Tuesday 12 February 2013 03:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> [IGC Coordinator hat on]
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 I wrote:
>>> Given that only a week is remaining until the submission deadline,
>>> let's have an internal deadline of February 10 for suggesting points
>>> to add or raising concerns about parts of the draft text.
>>> <snip>
>
>>> Paragraph 12
>>> ===========>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>>>
>>> Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
>>> also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
>>> real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
>>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
> Nick, IGF is a serious place for policy deliberations, it does not exist
> to offer 'interesting' things to people. You attend WIPO meeting, how
> many themes there makes 'direct' sense to common people. Has anyone for
> that reason argued to take the serious subjects that WIPO regularly
> deals with off the table? The WSIS mandate on the IGf is clear, and the
> recs of the WG on IGF improvements are even clearer..... the IGF has to
> address focussed policy issues and questions, not indulge in
> generalities. And, excuse me to say so,  a topis like "How can IG
> benefit users wordwide' is as unfocussed a theme as one can be... What
> really does it convey? What do you propose to achieve at the IGF under
> that theme.

What I propose is that instead of discussing IG in a way that is
divorced from what value it might have to real people, the opposite
should be encouraged. I have heard far too many abstract and
theoretical arguments about IG which often become bitter and difficult
exchanges about different value systems. I fail to see how this sort
of debate is of any benefit to the billions who want to get online, or
want maximum benefit from it.

Having themes that explicitly make clear that IG is not an objective
in itself but a means to an end - and then exploring how different
mechanisms actually have real benefits to actual people seems to me
that it would be a real improvement over the current situation.

After all, what purpose does public policy serve if it does not
improve the lives of real people? I think all of us in policy
positions owe an obligation to the billions who cannot speak because
they are not connected, or are too busy struggling for the basics of
life, to keep those people, not ourselves, at the front of our minds.

As to WIPO, that institution manages to avoid dealing with really
important questions the vast majority of the time. I think we should
aim much higher than WIPO vis a vis relevance to people's lives ;)

> I strongly suggest that we put forward focussed clear themes that helps
> IGF address its mandate of a serious policy dialogue, something which it
> has been refraining from doing till now.

Which, for the avoidance of doubt, is not in conflict with my idea.

> Hence, I am unable to agree to the IGC proposing such a general theme as
> 'How can IG benefit users wordwide'.

So, how about an alternative, assuming that you agree the objective
should be IG that delivers real value to people, which I would hope
and trust everyone here shares.


> rgds, parminder
>
>
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
>>> overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
>>> stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
>>> Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
>>>
>>> Paragraphs 13 + 14
>>> =================>> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
>>> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
>>> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
>>> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
>>> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
>>> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
>>> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
>>> members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
>>> with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
>>> Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
>>> consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
>>> reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
>>> across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
>>> resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
>>> openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
>>> treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
>>> interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
>>> community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
>>> so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
>>> Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>>>
>>> Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
>>> main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
>>> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>>> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
>>>
>>> Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
>>> "There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
>>> voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
>>> times."
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
>>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
>>> reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the number
>>> of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main session topics
>>> should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the
>>> tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions
>>> held at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those
>>> who have been heard from many times."
>>>
>>> Paragraphs 21 and 22
>>> ===================>> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
>>> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
>>> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
>>> to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
>>> Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
>>> as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
>>> commitments on Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the
>>> next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
>>> analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
>>> the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>>>
>>> Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
>>> Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
>>> choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
>>> lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific public
>>> comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting
>>> to decide on topics and format."
>>>
>>> Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
>>> specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
>>> Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG to
>>> proceed unfortunately."
>>>
>>> Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
>>> which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
>>> also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
>>>
>>> Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
>>> paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
>>> suggestions to that effect."
>>>
>>> Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and the
>>> review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why
>>> not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for development?"
>>>
>>> Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
>>> of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
>>> very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
>>> Action Plan (2003)"
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
>>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
>>> aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of
>>> the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
>>> “governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
>>> question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
>>> rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
>>> [The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
>>> Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in Bali.]
>>> [Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium Development Goals
>>> are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the
>>> discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003
>>> could be looked at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of
>>> IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and
>>> format."
>>>
>>> Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
>>> object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.
>>>
>>> Paragraph 36
>>> ===========>> Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
>>> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
>>>
>>> Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
>>>
>>> Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
>>> unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
>>> connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide, you
>>> need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
>>>
>>> Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
>>> and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
>>> logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
>>> stakeholders can comment."
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
>>> paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
>>> connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
>>> public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
>>>
>>> Any missed comments???
>>> =====================>> If I've missed any comments (that were posted by the deadline) please
>>> repost them ASAP, together with a proposed resolution.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 nashton at ccianet.org  Wed Feb 13 04:08:21 2013
From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:08:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>

+1 to the thought extracted below. Thanks Norbert for trying to herd
all the cats :)

-- 
Regards,

Nick
Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling.

On 12 Feb 2013, at 20:20, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> I do not think that there's anything fundamentally wrong with the
> process that I've been trying to implement here, of having relatively
> informal online editing followed by a formal call, with a deadline, to
> raise any issues about the text that has resulted from the informal
> process, and then having a consensus-oriented process to resolve the
> issues that have been raised

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 06:00:48 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:00:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>

Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> [1] wrote:

> +1 to the thought extracted below. Thanks Norbert for trying to herd
> all the cats :)
> 
>
> -- 
> Regards,
>
> Nick
> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic
> mangling.
>
> On 12 Feb 2013, at 20:20, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> I do not think that there's anything fundamentally wrong with the
>> process that I've been trying to implement here, of having relatively
>> informal online editing followed by a formal call, with a deadline,
>> to raise any issues about the text that has resulted from the
>> informal process, and then having a consensus-oriented process to
>> resolve the issues that have been raised  


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ashton-Hart


[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Perhaps a clarification is needed here.

This is the _Civil_Society_ Internet Governance Caucus.

We welcome and value the participation of people from other stakeholder
groups in general discussions, but the official, formal statements of
the Caucus need to explicitly represent an aggregated civil society
perspective.

It also happens to follow logically from the text of our charter
that only civil society actors can participate in the formal consensus
process for the official, formal statements of the Caucus. I'm willing
to explain this if desired (it's not as immediately clear as I'd like it
to be, but it does follow logically) -- but I really think that it
shouldn't be necessary to argue this explicitly.

The distinction between stakeholder groups is not always totally clear,
and I would suggest that when participating as a guest in the Caucus
of another stakeholder group, and in any boundary cases (like when
someone can be reasonably seen as being part of multiple stakeholder
categories at the same time), explicit disclosure is an important step.
One way to practice explicit disclosure is to use a .sig that
explicitly mentions the employer (or other stakeholder group
affiliation), possibly as part of a disclaimer that opinions expressed
are not to be taken as official positions of the employer.

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 ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 06:34:37 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 03:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYryxjcBrQNANrDbqMOnL4EJsHTFFK2gZRY-p33Dy6sTng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <1360755277.29330.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Dear Norbert,
 
I would like to add some suggestions for Theme for IGF 2013, I tried to login onto the site http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107 but my email id is not validated. Would you please guide me.
 
Suggestions for Main Theme and Sub Themes for IGF 2013 
 
One of the Proposed Theme is as follows:
   1. Internet for Kids (the Innocent Minds & Next Generation)
 
Sub Themes & Common Dialogues under above theme will cover:
1.1. Support the Innovative Ideas for new gTLDs (IDN) like dotKIDS, or dotABC
1.2. Legal & Human Rights for Kids
1.3. Internet Online Safety & Protection for Kids
 
1.4. 
Stakeholders may be invited to engage in discussion to present proposals & demonstrate their collective (& individual) efforts for the followings:
 
1.4.1. The establishment of contents databases & Search Engines, 
1.4.2. Informative & educational material, 
1.4.3. The development of Multi O/S Internet Browsers for Kids 
1.4.4. Free & Easy Internet Access on Internet enabled Kids Devices and in Schools,
 
1.4.5. Development of Email Systems (e.g. KidsEmail.org) and 
1.4.6. Development of Social Networking Websites for Kids
1.5. Governance Dialogue on Internet for Kids.
 
Thanking you and Best Regards
 
Imran Ahmad Shah
 
 


>________________________________
> From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 3:48
>Subject: Re: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
>  
>[with IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
>See below for my current list of issues that we need to resolve, most
>still open, one of them (Nick's comment on paragraph 12) I'll consider
>closed as of this posting.
>
>I'll hopefully get an answer tomorrow on whether we can get an
>extension of the Feb 14 deadline. Depending on that answer I'll set
>internal deadlines for
>- providing a specific textual change suggestion for the comments
>  marked "Please propose specific text.",
>- proposing improved resolutions,
>- formally objecting to proposed resolutions,
>- formally objecting to the current draft text regarding points for
>  which alternatives have been suggested.
>
>The decision process is going to be:
>- Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current text
>  of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
>- If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
>  the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
>- If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects 
>  to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
>  proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
>  current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
>  unchanged in that regard.
>- If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
>  resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
>  improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft text
>  regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
>  will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
>  try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
>  charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
>  enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>
>All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>
>
>Paragraph 1
>===========
>Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
>Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the way
>forward:"
>
>Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how these
>comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words on the
>process that was followed."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph will
>be added.
>
>
>Paragraph 2
>===========
>Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
>IGF Improvements"
>
>Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
>addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
>seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the IGF
>particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
>implemented."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 3
>===========
>Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and form.
>It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>
>McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>does it “really need to do”?"
>
>Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>of."
>
>
>Paragraph 4
>===========
>Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
>IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
>
>Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
>on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF itself
>aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review them and
>should put out a call for consultations. After that consultation, then
>the MAG should decide on what to implement and what not to implement."
>
>Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
>about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
>the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>
>Paragraph 10
>============
>Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013 IGF:
>“How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of
>the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms and institutions
>involved in this process?”
>
>Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
>myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do not
>see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not agree
>on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle, more
>that it already is?"
>
>Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
>enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
>Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
>legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
>my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is not
>clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
>develop a shared understanding."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 12 / Nick's comment
>=============================
>Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>
>Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
>also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
>real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
>Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
>
>Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
>overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
>stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
>Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
>
>IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT THERE IS NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS PROPOSED
>RESOLUTION. IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY DECLARED REJECTED. SINCE THE
>COMMENT EXPLICITLY NOTED THAT THE SUGGESTION OF THE CURRENT TEXT IS
>ACCEPTABLE, THE ISSUE IS THEREFORE CLOSED. 
>
>
>Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>=============================
>Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>
>Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
>significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
>topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
>on Human Rights as a general theme?"
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Nick's comment
>===================================
>Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
>be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
>are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
>opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
>sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
>can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
>bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
>members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
>with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
>Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
>consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
>reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
>across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
>resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
>openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
>treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
>interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
>community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
>so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
>Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>
>Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
>main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
>The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere."
>
>Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
>"There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
>voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
>times."
>
>Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
>resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
>reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the number
>of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main session topics
>should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the
>tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions
>held at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those
>who have been heard from many times."
>
>
>Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Arvi's comment
>===================================
>Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
>be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
>are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
>opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
>sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
>can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
>bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic coalition
>members to the broader community of IGF participants, including those
>with influence over or connections to processes of policy development.
>Main sessions have the potential to allow for high-level
>consensus-building and strategising on how these insights can be
>reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere, sometimes
>across issue areas: for example, messages on critical Internet
>resources might also be relevant to those involved in security or
>openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions should not be
>treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those with topical
>interests, but should be for the broadest possible segment of the IGF
>community to attend. Consequently, the programme should be restructured
>so that main sessions and workshops are not happening at the same time.
>Maybe the IGF could be extended to five says?"
>
>Current text of paragraph 14, with the possible change from the above
>proposed resolution added in brackets: "Even then a reduction of the
>number of main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is
>necessary. The specific choice of main session topics should vary year
>by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues
>everywhere. [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous
>IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those who have been
>heard from many times.]"
>
>Avri has attached the following comment to paragraph 13: "I disagree, I
>value the vary full schedule that give people a maximum choice. I know
>some peopel would like to create an artificial shorage of sessions so
>that their session gets greater traffic, but I prefer to see as many
>different topics and themes covers and suggest that we continue to fill
>all the room with worthwhile sessions. Yes, there should be an effort
>to not schedule similar topic against each other so that people can
>follw a thread, but I do not beleive that main sessions should be given
>any priority over workshops. Personally I think it is unfortunate that
>so much time is spent in main sessions and would prefer to see the
>meeting limited to just 3 main sessions and then many workshops."
>
>Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
>should limit the number of workshops, remove the text relating to
>that point, resulting in the following text for paragraph 14, with the
>possible change from the above proposed resolution added in brackets:
>"Even then a reduction of the number of main sessions is necessary. The
>specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere.
>[There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new
>voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from many
>times.]"
>
>
>Paragraph 15
>============
>Current text of paragraph 15: "The formats of the main sessions should
>be varied more. 3 hours is generally too long, some were poorly
>attended in Baku and there were many grumbled complaints about poor
>content, poor preparation, repeating issues from previous years, etc.
>Some main sessions need better preparation (and some were good –
>transcripts illustrate the differences), the MAG has an important fole
>to fulfil in regarding to ensuring good main sessions. Invite speakers
>early.  Find funds to support speakers. Planning of the sessions should
>be more open and transparent."
>
>Avri has commented: "The reason main session are ignored is because
>they are old fashioned pabulum spooning opportunities. They are too big
>for real participation by attendees, so they end up panels that seem to
>even bore many of the panelists"
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 16
>============
>Current text of paragraph 16: "It would be good to have one main
>session with a completely different outcome-oriented format that is
>more actively facilitated, for example a “speed dialogue” or a
>“moderated debate”. Amongst the most important foundations for this
>sort of format is that the participants need to be empowered (ie. they
>will produce something at the end), and that the power imbalances
>between them are eliminated for the duration of the exercise (through
>the way in which the process is facilitated)."
>
>Avri has commented: "I think this is fine for workshop and even for
>part of amin session, but fear a whole main session of this would just
>be a garble."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 17
>============
>Current text of paragraph 17: "Taking stock and emerging issues:  Mix
>the two sessions, that then justifies 3 hours.  This will probably be
>best held on the final morning (i.e. emerging issues become issues the
>IGF thinks emerging as important for the coming year(s))."
>
>Avri has commented: "I think taking stick is relatively unimportant
>since it is really just self aggrandizement. I think the emerging
>issues is possible the most important and relevant of the main session
>and should be one of the list bringing together all the emerging issues
>that have come up during the week and those which were still not
>advanced enough to be covered."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 19
>============
>Current text of paragraph 19: "Critical Internet Resources was a strong
>session in Baku, this justifies 3 hours.  Keep this."
>
>Avri has commented: "I think this may be getting old. I think that if
>it becomes a review of the existing mechanisms, it may be worth doing,
>but just to say the same things over and over and over year after year
>after year is just unproductive."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 20
>============
>Current text of paragraph 20: "New theme: Enhanced Cooperation.
>Sessions in mixed formats over 1 day, e.g. Morning expert panel session
>2 hours. Follow by a long break where people encouraged to join
>self-organizing small groups (there probably needs to be active
>facilitation of the process to encourage small groups to form with a
>good mix of stakeholder categories) to discuss a few set questions and
>ideas from the morning panel. Afternoon, 2 hour moderated session with
>audience only, no panel/experts etc.  Bring back comments from the
>small groups."
>
>Avri has commented: "I agree that this is a good direction to go in and
>should be one of the two major focuses of the upcoming IGF – other than
>Human Rights."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 21 / suggestion to not reference "MS framework of commitments"
>========================================================================
>Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
>principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
>cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
>to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
>Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
>as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
>commitments on Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the
>next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
>analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
>the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>
>Parminder commented: "A 'MS framework of commitments of IG principles'
>was just one of the several proposals on the way/ manner to go forward
>with developing Internet principles, and the nature of the ultimate
>output of the process. There are many others. I do not agree to use one
>specific proposal in this direction in the common IGC proposal... There
>are people for instance who have at earlier times sought a framework 
>convention on the Internet (ITfC, IGP, APC). So lets not associate our 
>statement with one particular approach, about which, for one, I have 
>specific and clear reservations."
>
>Proposed resolution: Remove the implied endorsement of the "MS framework
>of commitments", resulting in the following new text for paragraph 21:
>"New theme: Internet rights and principles. One day, perhaps same
>format as suggested for enhanced cooperation.  Or try something
>different. There was a proposal in Baku to summarize all
>(national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on Principles” (25+) of
>the last three years and to produce a “compendium”. Bali has to take
>the next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive
>and analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this
>into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>
>
>
>Paragraphs 21 and 22 / suggestions to add further points
>========================================================
>Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
>principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
>cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
>to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
>Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a “compendium”
>as a first step towards something like a multistakeholder framework of
>commitments on Internet Governance Principles. Bali has to take the
>next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive and
>analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this into
>the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>
>Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
>Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
>choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
>lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific public
>comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting
>to decide on topics and format."
>
>Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
>specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
>Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG to
>proceed unfortunately."
>
>Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
>which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
>also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
>
>Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
>paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
>suggestions to that effect."
>
>Avri commented: "As part of the Human rights overal themes this seems
>worth doing."
>
>Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and the
>review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why
>not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for development?"
>
>Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
>of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
>very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
>Action Plan (2003)"
>
>Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
>resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
>aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of
>the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
>“governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
>question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
>rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
>[The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
>Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in Bali.]
>[Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium Development Goals
>are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the
>discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003
>could be looked at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of
>IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and
>format."
>
>Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
>object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.
>
>
>Paragraph 26
>============
>Current text of paragraph 26: "At the 2012 IGF, there were too many
>workshops. Cut to between 80 and 100.  Make this target number known
>when the call for applications is published, might be the first time
>quite a large number of proposals are rejected (might think about
>implications of this for the IGF), people should expect to be
>disappointed"
>
>Avri commented: "I disagree about their being too many workshops. there
>should be as many workshops as there is room and good workshops. Yes
>the MAG should have standards and should be strict about workshops
>meeting those standards, but there should not be an artificial shortage
>of opportunities for workshops."
>
>Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
>should limit the number of workshops, remove this paragraph in its
>entirety. (The point about having standards and being strict about
>those standards is covered in paragraph 27.)
>
>
>Paragraph 28
>============
>Current text of paragraph 28: "For workshops, keep the current themes
>(access, SOP [security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance for
>development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging issues)."
>
>Avri commented: "I think the categories should be examined. I see
>little point in CIR, unless it becomes review of CIR institutions."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 29
>============
>Current text of paragraph 29: "Have the MAG better define Internet
>Governance, how it must be considered in workshop proposals (there are
>other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG issues).  Use an evaluation
>form for workshops (at the moment don’t even know if a room was empty
>or overflowing, simple count a good idea.)  However, indications are
>that while there were too many workshops in Baku many were strong in
>content, well received.  MAG should not cut what looks like a success
>to favor the floundering main sessions."
>
>Avri commented: "Internet governance is well defined between the WGIG
>report, the WGIG Background report and the TA, i do not see the MAG
>getting into a discussion of what Ig is? Perhaps as a workshop idea,
>people can examine these many working definitions to see if there is a
>cause for updating, but the MAG is not the place for this. The MAG
>should be a doer, not another body on introspecting academics. thee is
>a place for academic conjecture, but the MAG is not it."
>
>Proposed resolution: Make the text of paragraph 29 clearer so
>that it cannot be misunderstood as asking for a redefinition of
>Internet Governance, resulting in the following new text for paragraph
>29: "Clearly state in the call for workshop proposals that the
>proposed workshops shall relate to Internet Governance (as the
>term is defined in the WGIG report, the WGIG Background report and the
>Tunis Agenda); there are other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG
>issues.  Use an evaluation form for workshops (at the moment don’t
>even know if a room was empty or overflowing, simple count a good
>idea.)  However, indications are that while there were too many
>workshops in Baku, many were strong in content, well received.  MAG
>should not cut what looks like a success to favor the floundering main
>sessions."
>
>
>Paragraph 30
>============
>Current text of paragraph 30: "Merging is not the always the solution,
>it’s too easy an answer for MAG in their evaluation to say merge simply
>because proposals have similar words in the title.  If merging proposed
>then the new workshop needs support or tendency to end up with 2
>workshops in the same space (merge in name only)."
>
>Avri commented: "Merging is rarely the solution. If two are the same
>the MAG should pick one based on its objective criteria, and make them
>responsible integrating what they can of the other."
>
>Proposed resolution: Replace paragraph 30 with the text of Avri's
>comment.
>
>
>Paragraph 31
>============
>Current text of paragraph 31: "The rules for other sessions (open
>forums, dynamic coalition, etc.) should be clarified."
>
>Avri commented: "No matter how clear they are made, and they were
>rather clear last year, people will abuse those definitions. the point
>is for the MAG and secretariat to live up to the defintiions and
>criteria."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 32
>============
>Current text of paragraph 32: "The IGF pre-events have to be revisited
>and should receive more attention in terms of planning and projection
>as  these are receiving a lot of attention by participants."
>
>Avri commented: "And yet these need to remain separate from the IGF so
>they are not reduced to lowest common form as many other session under
>the auspice of the IGF are."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 36
>============
>Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
>IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
>
>Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
>
>Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
>unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
>connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide, you
>need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
>
>Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
>and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
>logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
>stakeholders can comment."
>
>Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
>paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
>connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
>public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
>
>
>Paragraph 46
>============
>Current text of paragraph 46: "The sudden shift of Open Consultations
>and MAG meetings from Geneva to France for February 2013 without open
>consultation and comments from the community puts a severe logistical
>pressure on participation for those that find it a challenge to already
>participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain
>individuals to participate that can freely move around EU but for
>people that need to acquire visas to travel to Switzerland and
>participate from outside of Europe are posed with a big challenge.
>Should they apply to Swiss or to the French and how does one explain
>why one is taking the visa of one country to participate in the other
>and how does the IGF Secretariat plan to manage this?"
>
>Avri commented: "I do not understand this. Is the problem that they
>need 2 visas? that I understand. I do not understand the choice issue."
>
>Norbert Bollow replied: "I believe the problem is in regard to people
>from countries whose citizens have a hard time getting visas for
>Europe. Applying for a Swiss visa will be hard to justify for attending
>a meeting in Paris. On the other hand, the IGF secretariat (which
>happens to be in Geneva, Switzerland) probably does not have the kind
>of relationship with the French authorities that would allow it to
>assist with applications for French visas."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>Paragraph 50
>============
>Current text of paragraph 50: "IGF should put out a call for host
>country expression of interest, with clearly laid out principles and
>process for selection, instead of simply waiting for offers."
>
>Avri commented: "ho about adding the notion of a public comment on the
>applicant hosts before a desion is made. And who is to make this
>decision. I beleive that is something that the MAG should make a
>recommendation on to the powers that be."
>
>Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>the draft text.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130213/da4cd8ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 06:35:37 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:35:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130213123537.44d49cb0@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC Coordinator hat on]

I wrote yesterday:
> I'll hopefully get an answer tomorrow on whether we can get an
> extension of the Feb 14 deadline.

It turns out to be not at all easy to extend that deadline. However 
if necessary, we can send the part that is resolved by then on Friday
morning, and an addendum on Monday morning.

I'd like us to try to avoid making use of the possibility with an
addendum on Monday, but I am much more relaxed now that I know that we
can take a bit of extra time for a consensus process on some difficult
point, if it turns out to be necessary to do so. 

> Depending on that answer I'll set internal deadlines for
> - providing a specific textual change suggestion for the comments
>   marked "Please propose specific text.",

23.00 UTC on Wednesday February 13.

> - proposing improved resolutions,

23.00 UTC on Wednesday February 13 (will be extended for those
specific points for which a further consensus process turns out to be
necessary).

> - formally objecting to proposed resolutions,

22.00 UTC on Thursday February 14 (will be extended for those
specific points for which a further consensus process turns out to be
necessary).

> - formally objecting to the current draft text regarding points for
>   which alternatives have been suggested.

05.00 UTC on Friday February 15.

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 06:52:46 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:52:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <1360755277.29330.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<1360755277.29330.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20130213125246.589e3f8f@quill.bollow.ch>

Dear Imram

I note that you have already posted this suggestion on

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/discussionspace?func=view&catid=7&id=286

which is what I was going to suggest as the way to bring the suggestion
to the attention of the IGF Secretariat.

So I personally think that no further action is necessary.


[The following is written with IGC Coordinator hat on.]
However, if you want to try getting your suggestion also reflected in
the IGC statement, we'll need, by 23.00 UTC today a totally explicit
specific suggestion for a specific textual change to the draft
statement.

I.e. you'd provide some text and state explicitly where exactly it
should be inserted. (I don't think that inserting your whole text would
be reasonable, i.e. I'd expect that probably someone would object,
resulting in "no consensus" and non-inclusion of the change. I'm sorry,
but it is really now very late in the process, in fact we're almost at
the extended deadline for raising issues.)

You can simply email this to the list, that will be the easiest for all
of us at this stage. :-)

Greetings,
Norbert



Am Wed, 13 Feb 2013 03:34:37 -0800 (PST)
schrieb Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>:

> Dear Norbert,
>  
> I would like to add some suggestions for Theme for IGF 2013, I tried
> to login onto the site
> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107 but my email id is not
> validated. Would you please guide me. Suggestions for Main Theme and
> Sub Themes for IGF 2013 One of the Proposed Theme is as follows:
>    1. Internet for Kids (the Innocent Minds & Next Generation)
>  
> Sub Themes & Common Dialogues under above theme will cover:
> 1.1. Support the Innovative Ideas for new gTLDs (IDN) like dotKIDS,
> or dotABC 1.2. Legal & Human Rights for Kids
> 1.3. Internet Online Safety & Protection for Kids
>  
> 1.4. 
> Stakeholders may be invited to engage in discussion to present
> proposals & demonstrate their collective (& individual) efforts for
> the followings: 1.4.1. The establishment of contents databases &
> Search Engines, 1.4.2. Informative & educational material, 
> 1.4.3. The development of Multi O/S Internet Browsers for Kids 
> 1.4.4. Free & Easy Internet Access on Internet enabled Kids Devices
> and in Schools, 
> 1.4.5. Development of Email Systems (e.g. KidsEmail.org) and 
> 1.4.6. Development of Social Networking Websites for Kids
> 1.5. Governance Dialogue on Internet for Kids.
>  
> Thanking you and Best Regards
>  
> Imran Ahmad Shah
>  
>  
> 
> 
> >________________________________
> > From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 3:48
> >Subject: Re: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG
> >meeting
> >  
> >[with IGC Coordinator hat on]
> >
> >See below for my current list of issues that we need to resolve, most
> >still open, one of them (Nick's comment on paragraph 12) I'll
> >consider closed as of this posting.
> >
> >I'll hopefully get an answer tomorrow on whether we can get an
> >extension of the Feb 14 deadline. Depending on that answer I'll set
> >internal deadlines for
> >- providing a specific textual change suggestion for the comments
> >  marked "Please propose specific text.",
> >- proposing improved resolutions,
> >- formally objecting to proposed resolutions,
> >- formally objecting to the current draft text regarding points for
> >  which alternatives have been suggested.
> >
> >The decision process is going to be:
> >- Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current
> >text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
> >- If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
> >  the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
> >- If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone
> >objects to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
> >  proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
> >  current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
> >  unchanged in that regard.
> >- If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
> >  resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for
> >proposing improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current
> >draft text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard
> >that point will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough
> >time, we could try to do a determination of rough consensus as
> >allowed by the charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there
> >isn't going to be enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
> >
> >Greetings,
> >Norbert
> >
> >
> >All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 1
> >===========
> >Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
> >Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
> >way forward:"
> >
> >Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
> >these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words
> >on the process that was followed."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
> >will be added.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 2
> >===========
> >Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
> >IGF Improvements"
> >
> >Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
> >addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should
> >be seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by
> >the IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
> >implemented."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 3
> >===========
> >Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> >vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global
> >public policy questions that it was created to contribute towards
> >resolution of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of
> >process and form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."
> >
> >McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
> >does it “really need to do”?"
> >
> >Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
> >resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> >vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global
> >public policy questions that it was created to contribute towards
> >resolution of."
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 4
> >===========
> >Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
> >IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
> >
> >Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
> >on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF
> >itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review
> >them and should put out a call for consultations. After that
> >consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and
> >what not to implement."
> >
> >Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
> >about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
> >the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 10
> >============
> >Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
> >propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013
> >IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
> >principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
> >and institutions involved in this process?”
> >
> >Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion
> >with myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF.
> >I do not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do
> >not agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural
> >principle, more that it already is?"
> >
> >Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
> >enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
> >Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
> >legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this
> >in my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it
> >is not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major
> >objective to develop a shared understanding."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 12 / Nick's comment
> >=============================
> >Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be:
> >“Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in Internet
> >governance”."
> >
> >Nick Ashton-Hart has commented: "That is a possible theme, but it is
> >also really dry – and  what connection does it have with the lives of
> >real Internet users? How about something like “How can Internet
> >Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”"
> >
> >Proposed resolution: Offer both proposals, resulting in: "A possible
> >overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation of all
> >stakeholders in Internet governance”, or “How can Internet
> >Governance Benefit Users Worldwide?”."
> >
> >IT IS CLEAR NOW THAT THERE IS NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS PROPOSED
> >RESOLUTION. IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY DECLARED REJECTED. SINCE THE
> >COMMENT EXPLICITLY NOTED THAT THE SUGGESTION OF THE CURRENT TEXT IS
> >ACCEPTABLE, THE ISSUE IS THEREFORE CLOSED. 
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
> >=============================
> >Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be:
> >“Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in Internet
> >governance”."
> >
> >Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as
> >a significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective
> >organizational topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why
> >have we given up on Human Rights as a general theme?"
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Nick's comment
> >===================================
> >Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
> >be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
> >are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
> >opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
> >sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
> >can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
> >bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic
> >coalition members to the broader community of IGF participants,
> >including those with influence over or connections to processes of
> >policy development. Main sessions have the potential to allow for
> >high-level consensus-building and strategising on how these insights
> >can be reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere,
> >sometimes across issue areas: for example, messages on critical
> >Internet resources might also be relevant to those involved in
> >security or openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions
> >should not be treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those
> >with topical interests, but should be for the broadest possible
> >segment of the IGF community to attend. Consequently, the programme
> >should be restructured so that main sessions and workshops are not
> >happening at the same time. Maybe the IGF could be extended to five
> >says?"
> >
> >Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
> >main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is
> >necessary. The specific choice of main session topics should vary
> >year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of
> >tongues everywhere."
> >
> >Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
> >"There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and
> >new voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from
> >many times."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
> >resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
> >reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the
> >number of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main
> >session topics should vary year by year to address truly “hot
> >topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere. There should not
> >be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new voices should
> >be prioritised over those who have been heard from many times."
> >
> >
> >Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Arvi's comment
> >===================================
> >Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
> >be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
> >are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
> >opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
> >sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
> >can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
> >bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic
> >coalition members to the broader community of IGF participants,
> >including those with influence over or connections to processes of
> >policy development. Main sessions have the potential to allow for
> >high-level consensus-building and strategising on how these insights
> >can be reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere,
> >sometimes across issue areas: for example, messages on critical
> >Internet resources might also be relevant to those involved in
> >security or openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions
> >should not be treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those
> >with topical interests, but should be for the broadest possible
> >segment of the IGF community to attend. Consequently, the programme
> >should be restructured so that main sessions and workshops are not
> >happening at the same time. Maybe the IGF could be extended to five
> >says?"
> >
> >Current text of paragraph 14, with the possible change from the above
> >proposed resolution added in brackets: "Even then a reduction of the
> >number of main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is
> >necessary. The specific choice of main session topics should vary
> >year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of
> >tongues everywhere. [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held
> >at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those who
> >have been heard from many times.]"
> >
> >Avri has attached the following comment to paragraph 13: "I
> >disagree, I value the vary full schedule that give people a maximum
> >choice. I know some peopel would like to create an artificial
> >shorage of sessions so that their session gets greater traffic, but
> >I prefer to see as many different topics and themes covers and
> >suggest that we continue to fill all the room with worthwhile
> >sessions. Yes, there should be an effort to not schedule similar
> >topic against each other so that people can follw a thread, but I do
> >not beleive that main sessions should be given any priority over
> >workshops. Personally I think it is unfortunate that so much time is
> >spent in main sessions and would prefer to see the meeting limited
> >to just 3 main sessions and then many workshops."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
> >should limit the number of workshops, remove the text relating to
> >that point, resulting in the following text for paragraph 14, with
> >the possible change from the above proposed resolution added in
> >brackets: "Even then a reduction of the number of main sessions is
> >necessary. The specific choice of main session topics should vary
> >year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of
> >tongues everywhere. [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held
> >at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those who
> >have been heard from many times.]"
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 15
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 15: "The formats of the main sessions
> >should be varied more. 3 hours is generally too long, some were
> >poorly attended in Baku and there were many grumbled complaints
> >about poor content, poor preparation, repeating issues from previous
> >years, etc. Some main sessions need better preparation (and some
> >were good – transcripts illustrate the differences), the MAG has an
> >important fole to fulfil in regarding to ensuring good main
> >sessions. Invite speakers early.  Find funds to support speakers.
> >Planning of the sessions should be more open and transparent."
> >
> >Avri has commented: "The reason main session are ignored is because
> >they are old fashioned pabulum spooning opportunities. They are too
> >big for real participation by attendees, so they end up panels that
> >seem to even bore many of the panelists"
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 16
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 16: "It would be good to have one main
> >session with a completely different outcome-oriented format that is
> >more actively facilitated, for example a “speed dialogue” or a
> >“moderated debate”. Amongst the most important foundations for this
> >sort of format is that the participants need to be empowered (ie.
> >they will produce something at the end), and that the power
> >imbalances between them are eliminated for the duration of the
> >exercise (through the way in which the process is facilitated)."
> >
> >Avri has commented: "I think this is fine for workshop and even for
> >part of amin session, but fear a whole main session of this would
> >just be a garble."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 17
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 17: "Taking stock and emerging issues:  Mix
> >the two sessions, that then justifies 3 hours.  This will probably be
> >best held on the final morning (i.e. emerging issues become issues
> >the IGF thinks emerging as important for the coming year(s))."
> >
> >Avri has commented: "I think taking stick is relatively unimportant
> >since it is really just self aggrandizement. I think the emerging
> >issues is possible the most important and relevant of the main
> >session and should be one of the list bringing together all the
> >emerging issues that have come up during the week and those which
> >were still not advanced enough to be covered."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 19
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 19: "Critical Internet Resources was a
> >strong session in Baku, this justifies 3 hours.  Keep this."
> >
> >Avri has commented: "I think this may be getting old. I think that if
> >it becomes a review of the existing mechanisms, it may be worth
> >doing, but just to say the same things over and over and over year
> >after year after year is just unproductive."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 20
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 20: "New theme: Enhanced Cooperation.
> >Sessions in mixed formats over 1 day, e.g. Morning expert panel
> >session 2 hours. Follow by a long break where people encouraged to
> >join self-organizing small groups (there probably needs to be active
> >facilitation of the process to encourage small groups to form with a
> >good mix of stakeholder categories) to discuss a few set questions
> >and ideas from the morning panel. Afternoon, 2 hour moderated
> >session with audience only, no panel/experts etc.  Bring back
> >comments from the small groups."
> >
> >Avri has commented: "I agree that this is a good direction to go in
> >and should be one of the two major focuses of the upcoming IGF –
> >other than Human Rights."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 21 / suggestion to not reference "MS framework of
> >commitments"
> >========================================================================
> >Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
> >principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
> >cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in
> >Baku to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations
> >on Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a
> >“compendium” as a first step towards something like a
> >multistakeholder framework of commitments on Internet Governance
> >Principles. Bali has to take the next step and the MAG should pave
> >the way for a more comprehensive and analytical approach. It would
> >be very good as well to link this into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
> >
> >Parminder commented: "A 'MS framework of commitments of IG
> >principles' was just one of the several proposals on the way/ manner
> >to go forward with developing Internet principles, and the nature of
> >the ultimate output of the process. There are many others. I do not
> >agree to use one specific proposal in this direction in the common
> >IGC proposal... There are people for instance who have at earlier
> >times sought a framework convention on the Internet (ITfC, IGP,
> >APC). So lets not associate our statement with one particular
> >approach, about which, for one, I have specific and clear
> >reservations."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: Remove the implied endorsement of the "MS
> >framework of commitments", resulting in the following new text for
> >paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and principles. One day,
> >perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced cooperation.  Or try
> >something different. There was a proposal in Baku to summarize all
> >(national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on Principles” (25+) of
> >the last three years and to produce a “compendium”. Bali has to take
> >the next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more
> >comprehensive and analytical approach. It would be very good as well
> >to link this into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
> >
> >
> >
> >Paragraphs 21 and 22 / suggestions to add further points
> >========================================================
> >Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
> >principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
> >cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in
> >Baku to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations
> >on Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a
> >“compendium” as a first step towards something like a
> >multistakeholder framework of commitments on Internet Governance
> >Principles. Bali has to take the next step and the MAG should pave
> >the way for a more comprehensive and analytical approach. It would
> >be very good as well to link this into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
> >
> >Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
> >Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
> >choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
> >lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific
> >public comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the
> >May meeting to decide on topics and format."
> >
> >Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
> >specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
> >Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG
> >to proceed unfortunately."
> >
> >Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda
> >– which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis)
> >should also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
> >
> >Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
> >paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
> >suggestions to that effect."
> >
> >Avri commented: "As part of the Human rights overal themes this seems
> >worth doing."
> >
> >Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and
> >the review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in
> >2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for
> >development?"
> >
> >Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
> >of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
> >very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
> >Action Plan (2003)"
> >
> >Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
> >resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The
> >development aspect of Internet Governance has been generally
> >overlooked in spite of the official choice of the theme for the 2012
> >IGF, and too often “governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT
> >for development. [A question that should be considered in this
> >context is: “How can human rights based Internet governance
> >principles support development?”] [The development agenda, which is
> >a key aspect of the part of the Tunis agenda that creates the IGF,
> >should also be a key theme in Bali.] [Given that WSIS+10 and the
> >review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in 2015,
> >why not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for
> >development?] [Also the WSIS of Action from 2003 could be looked
> >at.] Open specific public comment on design/scope of IG4D session.
> >Bring back to the May meeting to decide on topics and format."
> >
> >Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
> >object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object
> >to.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 26
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 26: "At the 2012 IGF, there were too many
> >workshops. Cut to between 80 and 100.  Make this target number known
> >when the call for applications is published, might be the first time
> >quite a large number of proposals are rejected (might think about
> >implications of this for the IGF), people should expect to be
> >disappointed"
> >
> >Avri commented: "I disagree about their being too many workshops.
> >there should be as many workshops as there is room and good
> >workshops. Yes the MAG should have standards and should be strict
> >about workshops meeting those standards, but there should not be an
> >artificial shortage of opportunities for workshops."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
> >should limit the number of workshops, remove this paragraph in its
> >entirety. (The point about having standards and being strict about
> >those standards is covered in paragraph 27.)
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 28
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 28: "For workshops, keep the current themes
> >(access, SOP [security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance
> >for development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging
> >issues)."
> >
> >Avri commented: "I think the categories should be examined. I see
> >little point in CIR, unless it becomes review of CIR institutions."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 29
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 29: "Have the MAG better define Internet
> >Governance, how it must be considered in workshop proposals (there
> >are other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG issues).  Use an
> >evaluation form for workshops (at the moment don’t even know if a
> >room was empty or overflowing, simple count a good idea.)  However,
> >indications are that while there were too many workshops in Baku
> >many were strong in content, well received.  MAG should not cut what
> >looks like a success to favor the floundering main sessions."
> >
> >Avri commented: "Internet governance is well defined between the WGIG
> >report, the WGIG Background report and the TA, i do not see the MAG
> >getting into a discussion of what Ig is? Perhaps as a workshop idea,
> >people can examine these many working definitions to see if there is
> >a cause for updating, but the MAG is not the place for this. The MAG
> >should be a doer, not another body on introspecting academics. thee
> >is a place for academic conjecture, but the MAG is not it."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: Make the text of paragraph 29 clearer so
> >that it cannot be misunderstood as asking for a redefinition of
> >Internet Governance, resulting in the following new text for
> >paragraph 29: "Clearly state in the call for workshop proposals that
> >the proposed workshops shall relate to Internet Governance (as the
> >term is defined in the WGIG report, the WGIG Background report and
> >the Tunis Agenda); there are other spaces in WSIS follow-up for
> >non-IG issues.  Use an evaluation form for workshops (at the moment
> >don’t even know if a room was empty or overflowing, simple count a
> >good idea.)  However, indications are that while there were too many
> >workshops in Baku, many were strong in content, well received.  MAG
> >should not cut what looks like a success to favor the floundering
> >main sessions."
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 30
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 30: "Merging is not the always the
> >solution, it’s too easy an answer for MAG in their evaluation to say
> >merge simply because proposals have similar words in the title.  If
> >merging proposed then the new workshop needs support or tendency to
> >end up with 2 workshops in the same space (merge in name only)."
> >
> >Avri commented: "Merging is rarely the solution. If two are the same
> >the MAG should pick one based on its objective criteria, and make
> >them responsible integrating what they can of the other."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: Replace paragraph 30 with the text of Avri's
> >comment.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 31
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 31: "The rules for other sessions (open
> >forums, dynamic coalition, etc.) should be clarified."
> >
> >Avri commented: "No matter how clear they are made, and they were
> >rather clear last year, people will abuse those definitions. the
> >point is for the MAG and secretariat to live up to the defintiions
> >and criteria."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 32
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 32: "The IGF pre-events have to be
> >revisited and should receive more attention in terms of planning and
> >projection as  these are receiving a lot of attention by
> >participants."
> >
> >Avri commented: "And yet these need to remain separate from the IGF
> >so they are not reduced to lowest common form as many other session
> >under the auspice of the IGF are."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 36
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should
> >be IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
> >
> >Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
> >
> >Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
> >unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
> >connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide,
> >you need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
> >
> >Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
> >and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
> >logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
> >stakeholders can comment."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph
> >between paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for
> >internet connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should
> >be made public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 46
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 46: "The sudden shift of Open Consultations
> >and MAG meetings from Geneva to France for February 2013 without open
> >consultation and comments from the community puts a severe logistical
> >pressure on participation for those that find it a challenge to
> >already participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain
> >individuals to participate that can freely move around EU but for
> >people that need to acquire visas to travel to Switzerland and
> >participate from outside of Europe are posed with a big challenge.
> >Should they apply to Swiss or to the French and how does one explain
> >why one is taking the visa of one country to participate in the other
> >and how does the IGF Secretariat plan to manage this?"
> >
> >Avri commented: "I do not understand this. Is the problem that they
> >need 2 visas? that I understand. I do not understand the choice
> >issue."
> >
> >Norbert Bollow replied: "I believe the problem is in regard to people
> >from countries whose citizens have a hard time getting visas for
> >Europe. Applying for a Swiss visa will be hard to justify for
> >attending a meeting in Paris. On the other hand, the IGF secretariat
> >(which happens to be in Geneva, Switzerland) probably does not have
> >the kind of relationship with the French authorities that would
> >allow it to assist with applications for French visas."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >Paragraph 50
> >============
> >Current text of paragraph 50: "IGF should put out a call for host
> >country expression of interest, with clearly laid out principles and
> >process for selection, instead of simply waiting for offers."
> >
> >Avri commented: "ho about adding the notion of a public comment on
> >the applicant hosts before a desion is made. And who is to make this
> >decision. I beleive that is something that the MAG should make a
> >recommendation on to the powers that be."
> >
> >Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >the draft text.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >To be removed from the list, visit:
> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> >For all other list information and functions, see:
> >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >To edit your 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 rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com  Wed Feb 13 07:19:19 2013
From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:19:19 -0500
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <E1U5bAW-0007iy-FN@igcaucus.org>
References: <E1U5bAW-0007iy-FN@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <CANF49E=sJmgeRMk2smBm0zUMPXDoqzvWtUpMw=FiA2sLq1oOqw@mail.gmail.com>

Obviously his account has been hacked.

Sent from my Android.
+1-617-939-3493
On Feb 13, 2013 7:15 AM, "Koven Ronald" <kovenronald at aol.com> wrote:

>   Hello,
>
>  Sorry to bother you with this but i had a sudden trip out of the country
> to Belgium. Am here to see my ill cousin she is suffering from Kidney
> disease and must undergo Kidney transplant to save her life. Kidney
> transplant is very expensive here, so i want to transfer her back home to
> have the surgery implemented. I really need to take care of this now but my
> credit card can't work here. I traveled with little money due to the short
> time I had to prepare for this trip and never expected things to be the way
> it is right now. I need a loan of 2,000 Euros from you and I'll reimburse
> you at my return. I will really appreciate whatever amount you can come up
> with,if not all get back to me. I'll advise on how to transfer it.
>
>  Bests, Rony
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130213/91169028/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 13 07:37:38 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:37:38 -0800
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <CANF49E=sJmgeRMk2smBm0zUMPXDoqzvWtUpMw=FiA2sLq1oOqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1U5bAW-0007iy-FN@igcaucus.org>
 <CANF49E=sJmgeRMk2smBm0zUMPXDoqzvWtUpMw=FiA2sLq1oOqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130213123738.GA17362@hserus.net>

Rebecca MacKinnon [13/02/13 07:19 -0500]:
>Obviously his account has been hacked.

Yes. This is a typical nigerian scam - and one that's reasonably recent.
Not more than 4..5 years old at any rate.

Quite targeted in that the spammer reads through old email to invent a
plausible excuse.

A friend's uncle is a doctor who goes to Africa a lot and had this happen
to him, and the email went out with enough plausible looking details - a
conference in nigeria that he HAD attended earlier, for example - according
to the scam, he was in nigeria at that moment, had been mugged and needed
his friends to wire some money over.

And here, its signed like Rony signs his email ..

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

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

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

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Feb 13 07:48:38 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:48:38 -0200
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <20130213123738.GA17362@hserus.net>
References: <E1U5bAW-0007iy-FN@igcaucus.org> <CANF49E=sJmgeRMk2smBm0zUMPXDoqzvWtUpMw=FiA2sLq1oOqw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213123738.GA17362@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <511B8BA6.20507@cafonso.ca>

Curiously, my antispam has been sistematically rejecting msgs from Rony. 
Maybe the server he uses is compromised, not only his account.

BTW, I never get any msg from AOL servers, except for Rony's.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 02/13/2013 10:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Rebecca MacKinnon [13/02/13 07:19 -0500]:
>> Obviously his account has been hacked.
>
> Yes. This is a typical nigerian scam - and one that's reasonably recent.
> Not more than 4..5 years old at any rate.
>
> Quite targeted in that the spammer reads through old email to invent a
> plausible excuse.
>
> A friend's uncle is a doctor who goes to Africa a lot and had this happen
> to him, and the email went out with enough plausible looking details - a
> conference in nigeria that he HAD attended earlier, for example - according
> to the scam, he was in nigeria at that moment, had been mugged and needed
> his friends to wire some money over.
>
> And here, its signed like Rony signs his email ..
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to 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 Feb 13 07:54:07 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:24:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <511B8BA6.20507@cafonso.ca>
References: <E1U5bAW-0007iy-FN@igcaucus.org> <CANF49E=sJmgeRMk2smBm0zUMPXDoqzvWtUpMw=FiA2sLq1oOqw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213123738.GA17362@hserus.net> <511B8BA6.20507@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <79E349D6-DBA4-4358-95F8-AE88FB2E7265@hserus.net>

Just his account.  I did see spam from yet another compromised account on another ISP also emitting "rony" spam .. so I guess our colleague has an extra large address book and the scammer is spreading the load around to avoid tripping spam filters too much.

You might not get much mail from AOL servers, and they have a small fraction of the huge number of users they had a few years back, but that still leaves them with millions of users on their systems.

--srs (iPad)

On 13-Feb-2013, at 18:18, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Curiously, my antispam has been sistematically rejecting msgs from Rony. Maybe the server he uses is compromised, not only his account.
> 
> BTW, I never get any msg from AOL servers, except for Rony's.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 02/13/2013 10:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Rebecca MacKinnon [13/02/13 07:19 -0500]:
>>> Obviously his account has been hacked.
>> 
>> Yes. This is a typical nigerian scam - and one that's reasonably recent.
>> Not more than 4..5 years old at any rate.
>> 
>> Quite targeted in that the spammer reads through old email to invent a
>> plausible excuse.
>> 
>> A friend's uncle is a doctor who goes to Africa a lot and had this happen
>> to him, and the email went out with enough plausible looking details - a
>> conference in nigeria that he HAD attended earlier, for example - according
>> to the scam, he was in nigeria at that moment, had been mugged and needed
>> his friends to wire some money over.
>> 
>> And here, its signed like Rony signs his email ..
>> 

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed Feb 13 07:54:19 2013
From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <20130213123738.GA17362@hserus.net>
References: <20130213123738.GA17362@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <1360760059129.fecaebf4@Nodemailer>

Out of curiosity, how many people in this list have has had their email and/or social media accounts compromised ?


Interested to get an ad-hoc sense of how affected (or not) this community is affected by account security issues


Regards


Robert 
—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130213/353eecbe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nashton at ccianet.org  Wed Feb 13 07:58:16 2013
From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:58:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>

Dear Norbert, FWIW:

1) I'm signed up to the list with my @ccianet.org address rather than a private address
2) Given my ICANN past and track record there and continuing work on IG and other Internet policy issues, I suspect my name and what I do for a living isn't a mystery here.
3) My sig on my handheld is neutral (for some reason the iPad isn't sending different sigs based on what address I'm sending from), on my PCs it isn' (as you can see below).
4) I think the tone and content of my interventions here makes pretty clear that I'm a strong advocate for actual people. Just because someone works for one constituency doesn't mean that they are pushing the views of that constituency 24x7. Many people on this list probably work for the for-profit sector in their daily jobs, and many if not most of those companies probably have some commercial nexus with the Internet in one way or another, but that hardly makes everything they say here suspect.
5) I am not participating here on behalf of anyone but myself. I presume that's true of most of the rest of the list, as relatively few people can make a living representing CS groups (unfortunately, in my view).

I certainly understand that those who don't work for another stakeholder community for a day-job in policy like I do should decide things, but I hardly agree that anyone in my position is incapable of proposing people-centric and/or pro civil-society positions. Ideas should succeed or fall on their merits - even if some of the proposers such as myself don't have the vote.

We are all people first, and employees second.

On 13 Feb 2013, at 12:00, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> [1] wrote:
> 
>> +1 to the thought extracted below. Thanks Norbert for trying to herd
>> all the cats :)
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Nick
>> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic
>> mangling.
>> 
>> On 12 Feb 2013, at 20:20, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> I do not think that there's anything fundamentally wrong with the
>>> process that I've been trying to implement here, of having relatively
>>> informal online editing followed by a formal call, with a deadline,
>>> to raise any issues about the text that has resulted from the
>>> informal process, and then having a consensus-oriented process to
>>> resolve the issues that have been raised  
> 
> 
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ashton-Hart
> 
> 
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> 
> Perhaps a clarification is needed here.
> 
> This is the _Civil_Society_ Internet Governance Caucus.
> 
> We welcome and value the participation of people from other stakeholder
> groups in general discussions, but the official, formal statements of
> the Caucus need to explicitly represent an aggregated civil society
> perspective.
> 
> It also happens to follow logically from the text of our charter
> that only civil society actors can participate in the formal consensus
> process for the official, formal statements of the Caucus. I'm willing
> to explain this if desired (it's not as immediately clear as I'd like it
> to be, but it does follow logically) -- but I really think that it
> shouldn't be necessary to argue this explicitly.
> 
> The distinction between stakeholder groups is not always totally clear,
> and I would suggest that when participating as a guest in the Caucus
> of another stakeholder group, and in any boundary cases (like when
> someone can be reasonably seen as being part of multiple stakeholder
> categories at the same time), explicit disclosure is an important step.
> One way to practice explicit disclosure is to use a .sig that
> explicitly mentions the employer (or other stakeholder group
> affiliation), possibly as part of a disclaimer that opinions expressed
> are not to be taken as official positions of the employer.
> 
> 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  Wed Feb 13 08:13:04 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:43:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <1360760059129.fecaebf4@Nodemailer>
References: <20130213123738.GA17362@hserus.net> <1360760059129.fecaebf4@Nodemailer>
Message-ID: <21075332-BE31-46DC-8A7A-8520592D9C10@hserus.net>

Civil society, particularly non technical civil society, is particularly vulnerable to compromise. Especially if they work in "sensitive" areas - eg: religions or political movements that their country takes exception to.

--srs (iPad)

On 13-Feb-2013, at 18:24, "Robert Guerra" <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:

> Out of curiosity, how many people in this list have has had their email and/or social media accounts compromised ?
> 
> 
> Interested to get an ad-hoc sense of how affected (or not) this community is affected by account security issues
> 
> Regards
> 
> Robert 
> —
> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
>> Rebecca MacKinnon [13/02/13 07:19 -0500]: >Obviously his account has been hacked. Yes. This is a typical nigerian scam - and one that's reasonably recent. Not more than 4..5 years old at any rate. Quite targeted in that the spammer reads through old email to invent a plausible excuse. A friend's uncle is a doctor who goes to Africa a lot and had this happen to him, and the email went out with enough plausible looking details - a conference in nigeria that he HAD attended earlier, for example - according to the scam, he was in nigeria at that moment, had been mugged and needed his friends to wire some money over. And here, its signed like Rony signs his email .. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130213/79396d2a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From bavouc at gmail.com  Wed Feb 13 08:20:51 2013
From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou[Private Business Account])
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:20:51 +0100
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <1360760059129.fecaebf4@Nodemailer>
References: <20130213123738.GA17362@hserus.net> <1360760059129.fecaebf4@Nodemailer>
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAANnlFloumCxMuwwBwSZjX53CgAAAEAAAAPrzemx+vk1Jme09aob+Hd8BAAAAAA==@gmail.com>

This is a call to be  more vigilant, make sure you often change your password, and that you have a strong password, Also make sure your antivirus and anti-spams is configure, update. Make sure you always close your session while using a public computer, or that you always close your computer while not in front of screen, avoid giving your password to others,

 

This type of scams mail come from Ivory coast, Nigeria, or Cameroun

 

The blacklist test returned that address 64.12.206.41 is blacklisted for the following server:

 

-          dnsbl.anticaptcha.net

-           <http://whatismyipaddress.com/blacklist/sorbs> spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net

-           <http://whatismyipaddress.com/blacklist/unsubscore> ubl.unsubscore.com

 

The internet Header of the message is:

 

Delivered-To: bavouc at gmail.com

Received: by 10.58.39.36 with SMTP id m4csp195431vek;

        Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:15:11 -0800 (PST)

X-Received: by 10.180.74.131 with SMTP id t3mr9251914wiv.26.1360757711269;

        Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:15:11 -0800 (PST)

Return-Path: <governance-owner at lists.igcaucus.org>

Received: from igcaucus.org (igcaucus.org. [2a02:2658:1011:1::2:2013])

        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r5si16746231wjq.235.2013.02.13.04.15.10

        (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);

        Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:15:11 -0800 (PST)

Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of governance-owner at lists.igcaucus.org designates 2a02:2658:1011:1::2:2013 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a02:2658:1011:1::2:2013;

Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;

       spf=pass (google.com: domain of governance-owner at lists.igcaucus.org designates 2a02:2658:1011:1::2:2013 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=governance-owner at lists.igcaucus.org;

       dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@mx.aol.com

Received: from sympa by igcaucus.org with local (Exim 4.76)

                (envelope-from <governance-owner at lists.igcaucus.org>)

                id 1U5bAY-0007jn-2x; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:10:34 -0500

Received: from imr-ma03.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.41])

                by igcaucus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76)

                (envelope-from <kovenronald at aol.com>)

                id 1U5bA7-0007ZM-5X

                for governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:10:07 -0500

Received: from mtaout-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.70])

                by imr-ma03.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 6648E1C000071;

                Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:14:35 -0500 (EST)

Received: from User (AC834269.ipt.aol.com [172.131.66.105])

                (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))

                (No client certificate requested)

                by mtaout-mb06.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPSA id 1F485E000081;

                Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:14:09 -0500 (EST)

From: "Koven Ronald"<kovenronald at aol.com>

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:14:31 +0100

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130212-1, 02/12/2013), Outbound message

X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

x-aol-global-disposition: G

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com;

                s=20121107; t=1360757675;

                bh=my7FACafCWaXb9g6zfM8Qz5XdNG4mATDFecYpHp1gBo=;

                h=From:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type;

                b=biboZfYnKUHNvqtZI9ACrRhIQo78bRSpRx9X2Y3FU1sIIfOMP6a0YHBob+EetHxyi

                eu/ZLwWTeGbyzgOBqxHatTbKXI77cFFlFRPuZ3V4wRoN7BbamiPE4bnlsxveUxtD43

                pnyJiuFAD2m/iAOtwuXbUFdHKDnnrIdw1FcMhsF0=

X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:147994000:93952408  

X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0  

x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d2946511b839110a4

X-AOL-IP: 172.131.66.105

Subject: [governance] Request

Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Koven Ronald"<kovenronald at aol.com>

X-Loop: governance at lists.igcaucus.org

X-Sequence: 4541

Errors-to: governance-owner at lists.igcaucus.org

Precedence: list

Precedence: bulk

Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org

X-no-archive: yes

List-Id: <governance.lists.igcaucus.org>

List-Archive: <http://lists.igcaucus.org//arc/governance>

List-Help: <mailto:sympa at lists.igcaucus.org?subject=help>

List-Owner: <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>

List-Post: <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa at lists.igcaucus.org?subject=subscribe%20governance>

List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sympa at lists.igcaucus.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance>

Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1360757412-28331-0"

Message-Id: <E1U5bAY-0007jn-2x at igcaucus.org>

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:54 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Request

 

Out of curiosity, how many people in this list have has had their email and/or social media accounts compromised ?

 

Interested to get an ad-hoc sense of how affected (or not) this community is affected by account security issues

 

Regards

 

Robert 

—
Sent from Mailbox <https://bit.ly/SZvoJe>  for iPhone

 

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

Rebecca MacKinnon [13/02/13 07:19 -0500]: >Obviously his account has been hacked. Yes. This is a typical nigerian scam - and one that's reasonably recent. Not more than 4..5 years old at any rate. Quite targeted in that the spammer reads through old email to invent a plausible excuse. A friend's uncle is a doctor who goes to Africa a lot and had this happen to him, and the email went out with enough plausible looking details - a conference in nigeria that he HAD attended earlier, for example - according to the scam, he was in nigeria at that moment, had been mugged and needed his friends to wire some money over. And here, its signed like Rony signs his email .. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130213/5bcb3d1d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 13 08:30:30 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:30:30 -0800
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAANnlFloumCxMuwwBwSZjX53CgAAAEAAAAPrzemx+vk1Jme09aob+Hd8BAAAAAA==@gmail.com>
References: <20130213123738.GA17362@hserus.net>
 <1360760059129.fecaebf4@Nodemailer>
 <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAANnlFloumCxMuwwBwSZjX53CgAAAEAAAAPrzemx+vk1Jme09aob+Hd8BAAAAAA==@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130213133030.GA17749@hserus.net>

Martial Bavou[Private Business Account] [13/02/13 14:20 +0100]:
>This type of scams mail come from Ivory coast, Nigeria, or Cameroun

ghana, south africa ..

>The blacklist test returned that address 64.12.206.41 is blacklisted for
>the following server:
>-          dnsbl.anticaptcha.net

obscure and nobody uses it

>-           <http://whatismyipaddress.com/blacklist/sorbs> spam.dnsbl.sorbs.net

very badly managed

>-           <http://whatismyipaddress.com/blacklist/unsubscore> ubl.unsubscore.com

again - a silly list. this IP is an isp smarthost - it is not a mailing list
server to be concerned with unsubscribes

so, please. I appreciate the research, but you need to be aware of the
actual implication of what you see here.



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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 08:59:25 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:59:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC Coordinator hat on]

As the deadline for raising issues has now passed, no new issues will
be added to the below list of issues under consideration unless I have
made a mistake and overlooked an issue that was actually raised before
the deadline.

Here is my current list of issues that we need to resolve (the one
that has been closed already by the last update remove already)...

In the following, quotation indicates the parts of the issues list that
have remained unchanged since the last update.

Greetings,
Norbert

> The decision process is going to be:
> - Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current
> text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
> - If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
>   the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
> - If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects 
>   to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
>   proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
>   current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
>   unchanged in that regard.
> - If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
>   resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
>   improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft
> text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
>   will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
>   try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
>   charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
>   enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
> 
> 
> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
> 
> 
> Paragraph 1
> ===========
> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
> way forward:"
> 
> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words
> on the process that was followed."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
> will be added.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2
> ===========
> Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
> IGF Improvements"
> 
> Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
> addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
> seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the
> IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
> implemented."

Parminder replied: "“Review by IGF’ looks a good thing to speak of, but
how doe sthis review happen — by MAG appointed panelists with their
‘recs’ going back to MAG to ‘consider’….. We are into very sticky
territory here…. It is dangerous to seek subversion of all processes –
CSTD WG was a multistakeholder process that adopted recs with
consensus. I dont understand why and how does now MAG want to become
the bigeest authourity in gobal IG of course in the name of the
undefinable mass called the IGF, and purporting to be speaking for it."

> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 3
> ===========
> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and
> form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."
> 
> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
> does it “really need to do”?"
> 
> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
> of."
> 
> 
> Paragraph 4
> ===========
> Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
> IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
> 
> Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
> on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF
> itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review
> them and should put out a call for consultations. After that
> consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and
> what not to implement."
> 
> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
> about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
> the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."

Parminder replied: "THis change suggested by Avri is completely
unacceptable… And it is a very very substantive point which in any case
should first be discussed in the big group…. Who gives the right to the
MAG to self appoint itself in a role of power, when no one gave it that
power… This is something I beleive a group within the MAG is trying to
do at present, and IGC’s statement cannot become an instrument to back
this highly problematic move."

> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text. 
> 
> 
> Paragraph 10
> ============
> Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
> propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013
> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
> and institutions involved in this process?”
> 
> Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
> myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do
> not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not
> agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle,
> more that it already is?"

Parminder replied to Avri's comment: "Avri seem to agee that NN is a
key architectural principle – that much agreement is enough. If we do
not agree on what it means that is what we will like to thrash out at
the IGF…. Outside narrow IG CS community obsessed with process issues,
after FoE, NN is almost universally seen as ‘the’ key IG issue. (Wasnt
ENTO proposal at WCIT, the main pre WCIT rallying point, also abut NN)"
 
> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
> enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
> Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
> legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
> my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is
> not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
> develop a shared understanding."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
> =============================
> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
> 
> Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
> significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
> topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
> on Human Rights as a general theme?"

Parminder replied: "I will like to stick with the proposed topic about
‘meaningful participation of all stkaeholders in IG’… Cant understand
when almost every global IG document seem to focus on
multistakeholerism, why the need to promote it as well as understand
its full implications should not be the overall theme for a year."

> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Nick's comment
> ===================================
> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic
> coalition members to the broader community of IGF participants,
> including those with influence over or connections to processes of
> policy development. Main sessions have the potential to allow for
> high-level consensus-building and strategising on how these insights
> can be reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere,
> sometimes across issue areas: for example, messages on critical
> Internet resources might also be relevant to those involved in
> security or openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions
> should not be treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those
> with topical interests, but should be for the broadest possible
> segment of the IGF community to attend. Consequently, the programme
> should be restructured so that main sessions and workshops are not
> happening at the same time. Maybe the IGF could be extended to five
> says?"
> 
> Current text of paragraph 14: "Even then a reduction of the number of
> main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is necessary.
> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues
> everywhere."
> 
> Nick Ashton-Hart has attached the following comment to paragraph 13:
> "There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and
> new voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from
> many times."
> 
> Proposed resolution: Add Nick's text to the end or paragraph 14,
> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 14: "Even then a
> reduction of the number of main sessions and a reduction of the number
> of workshops is necessary. The specific choice of main session topics
> should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the
> tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions
> held at previous IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those
> who have been heard from many times."
> 
> 
> Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Arvi's comment
> ===================================
> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic
> coalition members to the broader community of IGF participants,
> including those with influence over or connections to processes of
> policy development. Main sessions have the potential to allow for
> high-level consensus-building and strategising on how these insights
> can be reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere,
> sometimes across issue areas: for example, messages on critical
> Internet resources might also be relevant to those involved in
> security or openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions
> should not be treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those
> with topical interests, but should be for the broadest possible
> segment of the IGF community to attend. Consequently, the programme
> should be restructured so that main sessions and workshops are not
> happening at the same time. Maybe the IGF could be extended to five
> says?"
> 
> Current text of paragraph 14, with the possible change from the above
> proposed resolution added in brackets: "Even then a reduction of the
> number of main sessions and a reduction of the number of workshops is
> necessary. The specific choice of main session topics should vary year
> by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues
> everywhere. [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous
> IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those who have been
> heard from many times.]"
> 
> Avri has attached the following comment to paragraph 13: "I disagree,
> I value the vary full schedule that give people a maximum choice. I
> know some peopel would like to create an artificial shorage of
> sessions so that their session gets greater traffic, but I prefer to
> see as many different topics and themes covers and suggest that we
> continue to fill all the room with worthwhile sessions. Yes, there
> should be an effort to not schedule similar topic against each other
> so that people can follw a thread, but I do not beleive that main
> sessions should be given any priority over workshops. Personally I
> think it is unfortunate that so much time is spent in main sessions
> and would prefer to see the meeting limited to just 3 main sessions
> and then many workshops."
> 
> Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
> should limit the number of workshops, remove the text relating to
> that point, resulting in the following text for paragraph 14, with the
> possible change from the above proposed resolution added in brackets:
> "Even then a reduction of the number of main sessions is necessary.
> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere.
> [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and
> new voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from
> many times.]"


Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Parminder's comment
========================================
Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic
coalition members to the broader community of IGF participants,
including those with influence over or connections to processes of
policy development. Main sessions have the potential to allow for
high-level consensus-building and strategising on how these insights
can be reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere,
sometimes across issue areas: for example, messages on critical
Internet resources might also be relevant to those involved in
security or openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions
should not be treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those
with topical interests, but should be for the broadest possible
segment of the IGF community to attend. Consequently, the programme
should be restructured so that main sessions and workshops are not
happening at the same time. Maybe the IGF could be extended to five
says?"

Current text of paragraph 14, with the possible changes from the above
proposed resolutions marked by brackets: "Even then a reduction of the
number of main sessions [and a reduction of the number of workshops] is
necessary. The specific choice of main session topics should vary year
by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues
everywhere. [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous
IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those who have been
heard from many times.]"

Parminder has attached the following comment to paragraph 13, in
response to Avri's comment: "Main sessions remain the main part of IGFs
and should not be reduced or truncated."

Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus to recommend a
reduction of main sessions, remove the text relating to that point. If
the two preceding proposed resolutions are also accepted, this results
in the following text for paragraph 14: "The specific choice of main
session topics should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics”
that are on the tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be
‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new voices should be
prioritised over those who have been heard from many times."


> Paragraph 15
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 15: "The formats of the main sessions should
> be varied more. 3 hours is generally too long, some were poorly
> attended in Baku and there were many grumbled complaints about poor
> content, poor preparation, repeating issues from previous years, etc.
> Some main sessions need better preparation (and some were good –
> transcripts illustrate the differences), the MAG has an important fole
> to fulfil in regarding to ensuring good main sessions. Invite speakers
> early.  Find funds to support speakers. Planning of the sessions
> should be more open and transparent."
> 
> Avri has commented: "The reason main session are ignored is because
> they are old fashioned pabulum spooning opportunities. They are too
> big for real participation by attendees, so they end up panels that
> seem to even bore many of the panelists"
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 16
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 16: "It would be good to have one main
> session with a completely different outcome-oriented format that is
> more actively facilitated, for example a “speed dialogue” or a
> “moderated debate”. Amongst the most important foundations for this
> sort of format is that the participants need to be empowered (ie. they
> will produce something at the end), and that the power imbalances
> between them are eliminated for the duration of the exercise (through
> the way in which the process is facilitated)."
> 
> Avri has commented: "I think this is fine for workshop and even for
> part of amin session, but fear a whole main session of this would just
> be a garble."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 17
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 17: "Taking stock and emerging issues:  Mix
> the two sessions, that then justifies 3 hours.  This will probably be
> best held on the final morning (i.e. emerging issues become issues the
> IGF thinks emerging as important for the coming year(s))."
> 
> Avri has commented: "I think taking stick is relatively unimportant
> since it is really just self aggrandizement. I think the emerging
> issues is possible the most important and relevant of the main session
> and should be one of the list bringing together all the emerging
> issues that have come up during the week and those which were still
> not advanced enough to be covered."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 19
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 19: "Critical Internet Resources was a
> strong session in Baku, this justifies 3 hours.  Keep this."
> 
> Avri has commented: "I think this may be getting old. I think that if
> it becomes a review of the existing mechanisms, it may be worth doing,
> but just to say the same things over and over and over year after year
> after year is just unproductive."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 20
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 20: "New theme: Enhanced Cooperation.
> Sessions in mixed formats over 1 day, e.g. Morning expert panel
> session 2 hours. Follow by a long break where people encouraged to
> join self-organizing small groups (there probably needs to be active
> facilitation of the process to encourage small groups to form with a
> good mix of stakeholder categories) to discuss a few set questions and
> ideas from the morning panel. Afternoon, 2 hour moderated session with
> audience only, no panel/experts etc.  Bring back comments from the
> small groups."
> 
> Avri has commented: "I agree that this is a good direction to go in
> and should be one of the two major focuses of the upcoming IGF –
> other than Human Rights."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 21 / suggestion to not reference "MS framework of
> commitments"
> ========================================================================
> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in
> Baku to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations
> on Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a
> “compendium” as a first step towards something like a
> multistakeholder framework of commitments on Internet Governance
> Principles. Bali has to take the next step and the MAG should pave
> the way for a more comprehensive and analytical approach. It would be
> very good as well to link this into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
> 
> Parminder commented: "A 'MS framework of commitments of IG principles'
> was just one of the several proposals on the way/ manner to go forward
> with developing Internet principles, and the nature of the ultimate
> output of the process. There are many others. I do not agree to use
> one specific proposal in this direction in the common IGC proposal...
> There are people for instance who have at earlier times sought a
> framework convention on the Internet (ITfC, IGP, APC). So lets not
> associate our statement with one particular approach, about which,
> for one, I have specific and clear reservations."
> 
> Proposed resolution: Remove the implied endorsement of the "MS
> framework of commitments", resulting in the following new text for
> paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and principles. One day,
> perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced cooperation.  Or try
> something different. There was a proposal in Baku to summarize all
> (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on Principles” (25+) of
> the last three years and to produce a “compendium”. Bali has to take
> the next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive
> and analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this
> into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraphs 21 and 22 / suggestions to add further points
> ========================================================
> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
> to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
> Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a
> “compendium” as a first step towards something like a
> multistakeholder framework of commitments on Internet Governance
> Principles. Bali has to take the next step and the MAG should pave
> the way for a more comprehensive and analytical approach. It would be
> very good as well to link this into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
> 
> Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
> Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
> choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
> lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific
> public comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May
> meeting to decide on topics and format."
> 
> Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
> specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
> Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG
> to proceed unfortunately."
> 
> Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
> which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
> also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
> 
> Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
> paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
> suggestions to that effect."
> 
> Avri commented: "As part of the Human rights overal themes this seems
> worth doing."
> 
> Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and
> the review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in
> 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for
> development?"
> 
> Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
> of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
> very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
> Action Plan (2003)"
> 
> Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
> aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite
> of the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
> “governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
> question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
> rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
> [The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
> Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in
> Bali.] [Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium
> Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG
> follow up into the discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS
> of Action from 2003 could be looked at.] Open specific public comment
> on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to
> decide on topics and format."
> 
> Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
> object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 26
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 26: "At the 2012 IGF, there were too many
> workshops. Cut to between 80 and 100.  Make this target number known
> when the call for applications is published, might be the first time
> quite a large number of proposals are rejected (might think about
> implications of this for the IGF), people should expect to be
> disappointed"
> 
> Avri commented: "I disagree about their being too many workshops.
> there should be as many workshops as there is room and good
> workshops. Yes the MAG should have standards and should be strict
> about workshops meeting those standards, but there should not be an
> artificial shortage of opportunities for workshops."
> 
> Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
> should limit the number of workshops, remove this paragraph in its
> entirety. (The point about having standards and being strict about
> those standards is covered in paragraph 27.)
> 
> 
> Paragraph 28
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 28: "For workshops, keep the current themes
> (access, SOP [security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance
> for development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging
> issues)."
> 
> Avri commented: "I think the categories should be examined. I see
> little point in CIR, unless it becomes review of CIR institutions."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 29
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 29: "Have the MAG better define Internet
> Governance, how it must be considered in workshop proposals (there are
> other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG issues).  Use an evaluation
> form for workshops (at the moment don’t even know if a room was empty
> or overflowing, simple count a good idea.)  However, indications are
> that while there were too many workshops in Baku many were strong in
> content, well received.  MAG should not cut what looks like a success
> to favor the floundering main sessions."
> 
> Avri commented: "Internet governance is well defined between the WGIG
> report, the WGIG Background report and the TA, i do not see the MAG
> getting into a discussion of what Ig is? Perhaps as a workshop idea,
> people can examine these many working definitions to see if there is a
> cause for updating, but the MAG is not the place for this. The MAG
> should be a doer, not another body on introspecting academics. thee is
> a place for academic conjecture, but the MAG is not it."
> 
> Proposed resolution: Make the text of paragraph 29 clearer so
> that it cannot be misunderstood as asking for a redefinition of
> Internet Governance, resulting in the following new text for paragraph
> 29: "Clearly state in the call for workshop proposals that the
> proposed workshops shall relate to Internet Governance (as the
> term is defined in the WGIG report, the WGIG Background report and the
> Tunis Agenda); there are other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG
> issues.  Use an evaluation form for workshops (at the moment don’t
> even know if a room was empty or overflowing, simple count a good
> idea.)  However, indications are that while there were too many
> workshops in Baku, many were strong in content, well received.  MAG
> should not cut what looks like a success to favor the floundering main
> sessions."
> 
> 
> Paragraph 30
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 30: "Merging is not the always the solution,
> it’s too easy an answer for MAG in their evaluation to say merge
> simply because proposals have similar words in the title.  If merging
> proposed then the new workshop needs support or tendency to end up
> with 2 workshops in the same space (merge in name only)."
> 
> Avri commented: "Merging is rarely the solution. If two are the same
> the MAG should pick one based on its objective criteria, and make them
> responsible integrating what they can of the other."
> 
> Proposed resolution: Replace paragraph 30 with the text of Avri's
> comment.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 31
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 31: "The rules for other sessions (open
> forums, dynamic coalition, etc.) should be clarified."
> 
> Avri commented: "No matter how clear they are made, and they were
> rather clear last year, people will abuse those definitions. the point
> is for the MAG and secretariat to live up to the defintiions and
> criteria."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 32
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 32: "The IGF pre-events have to be revisited
> and should receive more attention in terms of planning and projection
> as  these are receiving a lot of attention by participants."
> 
> Avri commented: "And yet these need to remain separate from the IGF so
> they are not reduced to lowest common form as many other session under
> the auspice of the IGF are."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 36
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
> 
> Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
> 
> Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
> unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
> connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide,
> you need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
> 
> Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
> and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
> logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
> stakeholders can comment."
> 
> Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
> paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
> connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
> public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
> 
> 
> Paragraph 46
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 46: "The sudden shift of Open Consultations
> and MAG meetings from Geneva to France for February 2013 without open
> consultation and comments from the community puts a severe logistical
> pressure on participation for those that find it a challenge to
> already participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain
> individuals to participate that can freely move around EU but for
> people that need to acquire visas to travel to Switzerland and
> participate from outside of Europe are posed with a big challenge.
> Should they apply to Swiss or to the French and how does one explain
> why one is taking the visa of one country to participate in the other
> and how does the IGF Secretariat plan to manage this?"
> 
> Avri commented: "I do not understand this. Is the problem that they
> need 2 visas? that I understand. I do not understand the choice
> issue."
> 
> Norbert Bollow replied: "I believe the problem is in regard to people
> from countries whose citizens have a hard time getting visas for
> Europe. Applying for a Swiss visa will be hard to justify for
> attending a meeting in Paris. On the other hand, the IGF secretariat
> (which happens to be in Geneva, Switzerland) probably does not have
> the kind of relationship with the French authorities that would allow
> it to assist with applications for French visas."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.
> 
> 
> Paragraph 50
> ============
> Current text of paragraph 50: "IGF should put out a call for host
> country expression of interest, with clearly laid out principles and
> process for selection, instead of simply waiting for offers."
> 
> Avri commented: "ho about adding the notion of a public comment on the
> applicant hosts before a desion is made. And who is to make this
> decision. I beleive that is something that the MAG should make a
> recommendation on to the powers that be."
> 
> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> the draft text.


Without specific paragraph reference
====================================
Imran Ahmad Shah wrote: "I would like to add some suggestions for Theme
for IGF 2013, I tried to login onto the site
http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107 but my email id is not
validated. Would you please guide me. Suggestions for Main Theme and
Sub Themes for IGF 2013 One of the Proposed Theme is as follows:
   1. Internet for Kids (the Innocent Minds & Next Generation)
Sub Themes & Common Dialogues under above theme will cover:
1.1. Support the Innovative Ideas for new gTLDs (IDN) like dotKIDS, or
dotABC 1.2. Legal & Human Rights for Kids
1.3. Internet Online Safety & Protection for Kids
1.4. Stakeholders may be invited to engage in discussion to present
     proposals & demonstrate their collective (& individual) efforts for
     the followings:
1.4.1. The establishment of contents databases & Search Engines,
1.4.2. Informative & educational material, 
1.4.3. The development of Multi O/S Internet Browsers for Kids 
1.4.4. Free & Easy Internet Access on Internet enabled Kids Devices and
in Schools, 
1.4.5. Development of Email Systems (e.g. KidsEmail.org) and 
1.4.6. Development of Social Networking Websites for Kids
1.5. Governance Dialogue on Internet for Kids."
 
Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text, and where
precisely it would be added. If no specific proposal is made, by default
no change will be made to the draft text.


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed Feb 13 09:21:54 2013
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:21:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <E1U5bAN-0007eL-7k@igcaucus.org>
References: <E1U5bAN-0007eL-7k@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <CAHj_20igmv+qpFhJ75AGMpN=BtUaQbTWh5Z7-tmf+RAmqgv4pw@mail.gmail.com>

here is a case unfortunate and not very accommodating in a list or we have
very serious concerns that absorb our attention. We need to track this
intrusion and put it out of state harm.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

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




2013/2/13 Koven Ronald <kovenronald at aol.com>

>   Hello,
>
>  Sorry to bother you with this but i had a sudden trip out of the country
> to Belgium. Am here to see my ill cousin she is suffering from Kidney
> disease and must undergo Kidney transplant to save her life. Kidney
> transplant is very expensive here, so i want to transfer her back home to
> have the surgery implemented. I really need to take care of this now but my
> credit card can't work here. I traveled with little money due to the short
> time I had to prepare for this trip and never expected things to be the way
> it is right now. I need a loan of 2,000 Euros from you and I'll reimburse
> you at my return. I will really appreciate whatever amount you can come up
> with,if not all get back to me. I'll advise on how to transfer it.
>
>  Bests, Rony
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130213/834f65f1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pimienta at funredes.org  Wed Feb 13 09:20:31 2013
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:20:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Civil Society speaker slots at WSIS+10 in  Paris
In-Reply-To: <CD3810D0.3B4E9%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
References: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CFA6176F351@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
 <CD3810D0.3B4E9%divina.meigs@orange.fr>
Message-ID: <E1U5dAf-0001XB-VV@igcaucus.org>

Just to inform that my colleague Daniel Prado (d.prado at maaya.org), 
Exec. Secretary of MAAYA , will be present and could represent
civil society interests in the field of linguistic diversity in 
cyberspace in WSIS (he will present on this subject in a UNESCO workshop).

MAAYA (http://maaya.org)  is the World Network for Linguistic 
Diversity created after WSIS by Adama Samassekou who is the current President.

Daniel and I work closely in the referenced matter which is hardly 
represented in WSIS and this is why I share this information.
You can relate to him the same way and with the same trust you would 
have related to me.


-- 
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 avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 09:54:31 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:54:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation and
 MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>


On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
> 
> As the deadline for raising issues has now passed, no new issues will
> be added to the below list of issues under consideration unless I have
> made a mistake and overlooked an issue that was actually raised before
> the deadline.
> 
> Here is my current list of issues that we need to resolve (the one
> that has been closed already by the last update remove already)...
> 
> In the following, quotation indicates the parts of the issues list that
> have remained unchanged since the last update.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
>> The decision process is going to be:
>> - Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current
>> text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
>> - If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
>>  the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
>> - If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects 
>>  to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
>>  proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
>>  current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
>>  unchanged in that regard.
>> - If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
>>  resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
>>  improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft
>> text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
>>  will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
>>  try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
>>  charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
>>  enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
>> 
>> 
>> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 1
>> ===========
>> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
>> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
>> way forward:"
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
>> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words
>> on the process that was followed."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
>> will be added.
>> 

Norbert, you have frequently writen about your process.  extract a few of your sentence.  something like:

Co-cos put out a call, we have a common doc that allowed for comments by the paragraph, we had list discussions. we went  through a repeat process of calling for consensus, we had  last call for members only, the co-cos called consensus, we were done.

>> 
>> Paragraph 2
>> ===========
>> Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
>> IGF Improvements"
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
>> addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
>> seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the
>> IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
>> implemented."
> 
> Parminder replied: "“Review by IGF’ looks a good thing to speak of, but
> how doe sthis review happen — by MAG appointed panelists with their
> ‘recs’ going back to MAG to ‘consider’….. We are into very sticky
> territory here…. It is dangerous to seek subversion of all processes –
> CSTD WG was a multistakeholder process that adopted recs with
> consensus. I dont understand why and how does now MAG want to become
> the bigeest authourity in gobal IG of course in the name of the
> undefinable mass called the IGF, and purporting to be speaking for it."

As I recommended.  MAG needs to recommend implementation of any of these so-called multistakeholder recommendations.  To do this they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment byt the IGF body politic.

> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

Insert: 

Before MAG  implements of any of the CSTD WG recommendations, we recommend that they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment by the IGF body politic.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 3
>> ===========
>> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and
>> form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>> 
>> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>> does it “really need to do”?"
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> of."
>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 4
>> ===========
>> Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
>> IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
>> on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF
>> itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review
>> them and should put out a call for consultations. After that
>> consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and
>> what not to implement."
>> 
>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
>> about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
>> the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
> 
> Parminder replied: "THis change suggested by Avri is completely
> unacceptable… And it is a very very substantive point which in any case
> should first be discussed in the big group…. Who gives the right to the
> MAG to self appoint itself in a role of power, when no one gave it that
> power… This is something I beleive a group within the MAG is trying to
> do at present, and IGC’s statement cannot become an instrument to back
> this highly problematic move."
> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text. 
>> 

see the response above.

>> 
>> Paragraph 10
>> ============
>> Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>> propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013
>> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>> and institutions involved in this process?”
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
>> myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do
>> not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not
>> agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle,
>> more that it already is?"
> 
> Parminder replied to Avri's comment: "Avri seem to agee that NN is a
> key architectural principle – that much agreement is enough. If we do
> not agree on what it means that is what we will like to thrash out at
> the IGF…. Outside narrow IG CS community obsessed with process issues,
> after FoE, NN is almost universally seen as ‘the’ key IG issue. (Wasnt
> ENTO proposal at WCIT, the main pre WCIT rallying point, also abut NN)"

I am fine with saying that we think the best effort network for all is the best idea..

> 
>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
>> enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.

It is clear in everyones mind.  Just the images are completely different.


>> Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
>> legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
>> my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is
>> not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
>> develop a shared understanding."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.
>> 

"In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
propose that the following policy question 

be included as a workshop topic  for

2013
IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
and institutions involved in this process?”


>> 
>> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>> =============================
>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
>> significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
>> topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
>> on Human Rights as a general theme?"
> 
> Parminder replied: "I will like to stick with the proposed topic about
> ‘meaningful participation of all stkaeholders in IG’… Cant understand
> when almost every global IG document seem to focus on
> multistakeholerism, why the need to promote it as well as understand
> its full implications should not be the overall theme for a year."
> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

"A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “

Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"


-----

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 10:25:27 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:25:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
	<20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
	<DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
Message-ID: <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>

Dear Nick,

in order to perhaps explain better where I'm coming from... what we're
doing in developing an IGC "written contribution", especially during
the consensus process phase, is part of what the IGC mission statement
calls "representation of civil society contributions in Internet
governance processes"... I would suggest that if you want to be part of
a group representing civil society in any topic area, you need to be
deeply immersed in civil society thinking in that topic area. Of course
it is possible to achieve this kind of immersion while having a
different (typically, non civil society) day job during which one works
in a different topic area. I don't believe that it is possible to be in
such a way immersed in civil society thinking in a topic area while at
the same time representing business interests in the same topic area.
(So, for example if a professional industry interests representative
in the area of Internet governance, like yourself, wants to gain
experience at being also a civil society representative, that would
be achieved by engaging as a civil society person in a totally
unrelated subject area, e.g. cyclists' rights.) 

In any case, your recent response to Parminder was to my ears very much
an expression of an industry perspective.

That is not a contradiction with your claim that you're "an advocate
for actual people". In fact, isn't it in a way the whole point of
industry is that it exists to meet needs of actual people? Any company
which doesn't do that is likely to go bankrupt quickly!

Also I think that it is great when industry representatives take pro
civil society positions. (With that I mean that if there is a good
civil society position, which is convincing on the merits of its
arguments, and then industry representatives decide to support that
position, that's great!) Conversely it also sometimes happens that
civil society representatives support some positions developed by
industry representatives.

We civil society people however need to be careful to maintain our
independence, and identity as civil society, and that we don't allow the
positions that are appropriate for civil society to take to be watered
down etc.

In fact civil society in the Internet governance area is in my opinion
to a significant extent in an identity crisis, in the sense that the
practical meaning of the term "civil society", and what the associated
value systems are, is today much less clear than it used to be say ten
years ago. That is in fact a significant part of the reason why I
jumped at this opportunity to establish at least some kind of boundary
marker.

Greetings,
Norbert


Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:

> Dear Norbert, FWIW:
> 
> 1) I'm signed up to the list with my @ccianet.org address rather than
> a private address
> 2) Given my ICANN past and track record there and continuing work
> on IG and other Internet policy issues, I suspect my name and what I
> do for a living isn't a mystery here.
> 3) My sig on my handheld is neutral (for some reason the iPad isn't
> sending different sigs based on what address I'm sending from), on my
> PCs it isn' (as you can see below).
> 4) I think the tone and content of my interventions here makes
> pretty clear that I'm a strong advocate for actual people. Just
> because someone works for one constituency doesn't mean that they are
> pushing the views of that constituency 24x7. Many people on this list
> probably work for the for-profit sector in their daily jobs, and many
> if not most of those companies probably have some commercial nexus
> with the Internet in one way or another, but that hardly makes
> everything they say here suspect.
> 5) I am not participating here on behalf of anyone but myself. I
> presume that's true of most of the rest of the list, as relatively
> few people can make a living representing CS groups (unfortunately,
> in my view).
> 
> I certainly understand that those who don't work for another
> stakeholder community for a day-job in policy like I do should decide
> things, but I hardly agree that anyone in my position is incapable of
> proposing people-centric and/or pro civil-society positions. Ideas
> should succeed or fall on their merits - even if some of the
> proposers such as myself don't have the vote.
> 
> We are all people first, and employees second.
> 
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 12:00, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
> > Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> [1] wrote:
> > 
> >> +1 to the thought extracted below. Thanks Norbert for trying to
> >> herd all the cats :)
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Regards,
> >> 
> >> Nick
> >> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic
> >> mangling.
> >> 
> >> On 12 Feb 2013, at 20:20, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> I do not think that there's anything fundamentally wrong with the
> >>> process that I've been trying to implement here, of having
> >>> relatively informal online editing followed by a formal call,
> >>> with a deadline, to raise any issues about the text that has
> >>> resulted from the informal process, and then having a
> >>> consensus-oriented process to resolve the issues that have been
> >>> raised  
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ashton-Hart
> > 
> > 
> > [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> > 
> > Perhaps a clarification is needed here.
> > 
> > This is the _Civil_Society_ Internet Governance Caucus.
> > 
> > We welcome and value the participation of people from other
> > stakeholder groups in general discussions, but the official, formal
> > statements of the Caucus need to explicitly represent an aggregated
> > civil society perspective.
> > 
> > It also happens to follow logically from the text of our charter
> > that only civil society actors can participate in the formal
> > consensus process for the official, formal statements of the
> > Caucus. I'm willing to explain this if desired (it's not as
> > immediately clear as I'd like it to be, but it does follow
> > logically) -- but I really think that it shouldn't be necessary to
> > argue this explicitly.
> > 
> > The distinction between stakeholder groups is not always totally
> > clear, and I would suggest that when participating as a guest in
> > the Caucus of another stakeholder group, and in any boundary cases
> > (like when someone can be reasonably seen as being part of multiple
> > stakeholder categories at the same time), explicit disclosure is an
> > important step. One way to practice explicit disclosure is to use
> > a .sig that explicitly mentions the employer (or other stakeholder
> > group affiliation), possibly as part of a disclaimer that opinions
> > expressed are not to be taken as official positions of the employer.
> > 
> > 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 dvbirve at yandex.ru  Wed Feb 13 10:31:04 2013
From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:31:04 +0400
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
	<20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
	<DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <149971360769464@web29g.yandex.ru>

Dear colleagues!

is there any hope for deadline 14 Feb. extention? because we are also preparing contributions for the Open Consultations.

With kind regards, Andrey Shcherbovich
HSE (Moscow)

13.02.2013, 19:26, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch>:
> Dear Nick,
>
> in order to perhaps explain better where I'm coming from... what we're
> doing in developing an IGC "written contribution", especially during
> the consensus process phase, is part of what the IGC mission statement
> calls "representation of civil society contributions in Internet
> governance processes"... I would suggest that if you want to be part of
> a group representing civil society in any topic area, you need to be
> deeply immersed in civil society thinking in that topic area. Of course
> it is possible to achieve this kind of immersion while having a
> different (typically, non civil society) day job during which one works
> in a different topic area. I don't believe that it is possible to be in
> such a way immersed in civil society thinking in a topic area while at
> the same time representing business interests in the same topic area.
> (So, for example if a professional industry interests representative
> in the area of Internet governance, like yourself, wants to gain
> experience at being also a civil society representative, that would
> be achieved by engaging as a civil society person in a totally
> unrelated subject area, e.g. cyclists' rights.)
>
> In any case, your recent response to Parminder was to my ears very much
> an expression of an industry perspective.
>
> That is not a contradiction with your claim that you're "an advocate
> for actual people". In fact, isn't it in a way the whole point of
> industry is that it exists to meet needs of actual people? Any company
> which doesn't do that is likely to go bankrupt quickly!
>
> Also I think that it is great when industry representatives take pro
> civil society positions. (With that I mean that if there is a good
> civil society position, which is convincing on the merits of its
> arguments, and then industry representatives decide to support that
> position, that's great!) Conversely it also sometimes happens that
> civil society representatives support some positions developed by
> industry representatives.
>
> We civil society people however need to be careful to maintain our
> independence, and identity as civil society, and that we don't allow the
> positions that are appropriate for civil society to take to be watered
> down etc.
>
> In fact civil society in the Internet governance area is in my opinion
> to a significant extent in an identity crisis, in the sense that the
> practical meaning of the term "civil society", and what the associated
> value systems are, is today much less clear than it used to be say ten
> years ago. That is in fact a significant part of the reason why I
> jumped at this opportunity to establish at least some kind of boundary
> marker.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Norbert, FWIW:
>>
>>  1) I'm signed up to the list with my @ccianet.org address rather than
>>  a private address
>>  2) Given my ICANN past and track record there and continuing work
>>  on IG and other Internet policy issues, I suspect my name and what I
>>  do for a living isn't a mystery here.
>>  3) My sig on my handheld is neutral (for some reason the iPad isn't
>>  sending different sigs based on what address I'm sending from), on my
>>  PCs it isn' (as you can see below).
>>  4) I think the tone and content of my interventions here makes
>>  pretty clear that I'm a strong advocate for actual people. Just
>>  because someone works for one constituency doesn't mean that they are
>>  pushing the views of that constituency 24x7. Many people on this list
>>  probably work for the for-profit sector in their daily jobs, and many
>>  if not most of those companies probably have some commercial nexus
>>  with the Internet in one way or another, but that hardly makes
>>  everything they say here suspect.
>>  5) I am not participating here on behalf of anyone but myself. I
>>  presume that's true of most of the rest of the list, as relatively
>>  few people can make a living representing CS groups (unfortunately,
>>  in my view).
>>
>>  I certainly understand that those who don't work for another
>>  stakeholder community for a day-job in policy like I do should decide
>>  things, but I hardly agree that anyone in my position is incapable of
>>  proposing people-centric and/or pro civil-society positions. Ideas
>>  should succeed or fall on their merits - even if some of the
>>  proposers such as myself don't have the vote.
>>
>>  We are all people first, and employees second.
>>
>>  On 13 Feb 2013, at 12:00, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>  Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at ccianet.org> [1] wrote:
>>>>  +1 to the thought extracted below. Thanks Norbert for trying to
>>>>  herd all the cats :)
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>>  Regards,
>>>>
>>>>  Nick
>>>>  Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic
>>>>  mangling.
>>>>
>>>>  On 12 Feb 2013, at 20:20, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>>>>  I do not think that there's anything fundamentally wrong with the
>>>>>  process that I've been trying to implement here, of having
>>>>>  relatively informal online editing followed by a formal call,
>>>>>  with a deadline, to raise any issues about the text that has
>>>>>  resulted from the informal process, and then having a
>>>>>  consensus-oriented process to resolve the issues that have been
>>>>>  raised
>>>  [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Ashton-Hart
>>>
>>>  [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>>>
>>>  Perhaps a clarification is needed here.
>>>
>>>  This is the _Civil_Society_ Internet Governance Caucus.
>>>
>>>  We welcome and value the participation of people from other
>>>  stakeholder groups in general discussions, but the official, formal
>>>  statements of the Caucus need to explicitly represent an aggregated
>>>  civil society perspective.
>>>
>>>  It also happens to follow logically from the text of our charter
>>>  that only civil society actors can participate in the formal
>>>  consensus process for the official, formal statements of the
>>>  Caucus. I'm willing to explain this if desired (it's not as
>>>  immediately clear as I'd like it to be, but it does follow
>>>  logically) -- but I really think that it shouldn't be necessary to
>>>  argue this explicitly.
>>>
>>>  The distinction between stakeholder groups is not always totally
>>>  clear, and I would suggest that when participating as a guest in
>>>  the Caucus of another stakeholder group, and in any boundary cases
>>>  (like when someone can be reasonably seen as being part of multiple
>>>  stakeholder categories at the same time), explicit disclosure is an
>>>  important step. One way to practice explicit disclosure is to use
>>>  a .sig that explicitly mentions the employer (or other stakeholder
>>>  group affiliation), possibly as part of a disclaimer that opinions
>>>  expressed are not to be taken as official positions of the employer.
>>>
>>>  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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Feb 13 10:46:24 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:46:24 -0500
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Dear Nick,
>
> in order to perhaps explain better where I'm coming from... what we're
> doing in developing an IGC "written contribution", especially during
> the consensus process phase, is part of what the IGC mission statement
> calls "representation of civil society contributions in Internet
> governance processes"... I would suggest that if you want to be part of
> a group representing civil society in any topic area, you need to be
> deeply immersed in civil society thinking

Please define this "civil society thinking".

 in that topic area. Of course
> it is possible to achieve this kind of immersion while having a
> different (typically, non civil society) day job during which one works
> in a different topic area. I don't believe that it is possible to be in
> such a way immersed in civil society thinking in a topic area while at
> the same time representing business interests in the same topic area.


What if the business interests exactly coincide with CS interests in
that topic area.


> (So, for example if a professional industry interests representative
> in the area of Internet governance, like yourself, wants to gain
> experience at being also a civil society representative, that would
> be achieved by engaging as a civil society person in a totally
> unrelated subject area, e.g. cyclists' rights.)
>
> In any case, your recent response to Parminder was to my ears very much
> an expression of an industry perspective.
>
> That is not a contradiction with your claim that you're "an advocate
> for actual people". In fact, isn't it in a way the whole point of
> industry is that it exists to meet needs of actual people? Any company
> which doesn't do that is likely to go bankrupt quickly!
>
> Also I think that it is great when industry representatives take pro
> civil society positions. (With that I mean that if there is a good
> civil society position, which is convincing on the merits of its
> arguments, and then industry representatives decide to support that
> position, that's great!) Conversely it also sometimes happens that
> civil society representatives support some positions developed by
> industry representatives.
>
> We civil society people however need to be careful to maintain our
> independence, and identity as civil society, and that we don't allow the
> positions that are appropriate for civil society to take to be watered
> down etc.
>
> In fact civil society in the Internet governance area is in my opinion
> to a significant extent in an identity crisis, in the sense that the
> practical meaning of the term "civil society", and what the associated
> value systems are, is today much less clear than it used to be say ten
> years ago. That is in fact a significant part of the reason why I
> jumped at this opportunity to establish at least some kind of boundary
> marker.


I don't think that is up to you (as a co-co).


-- 
Cheers,

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

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 10:50:33 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:50:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <149971360769464@web29g.yandex.ru>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
	<20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
	<DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
	<20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
	<149971360769464@web29g.yandex.ru>
Message-ID: <20130213165033.16771fda@quill.bollow.ch>

Shcherbovich Andrey <dvbirve at yandex.ru> wrote:

> is there any hope for deadline 14 Feb. extention? because we are also
> preparing contributions for the Open Consultations.

The response that I got from the IGF Secretariat when I asked about
this, due to some new substantive issues having been raised at the last
minute, was that they're "cutting it close as it is", and "will start
with the compilation of the syntheses paper on Friday".

So I don't think that there's any significant hope for a general
deadline extension.

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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 13 11:03:38 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:03:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLtsH58LzpZ7q9Pn7FxfMqsE=d4XdkvWCc7Pq3tdRmznag@mail.gmail.com>

Mejor dicho, la tardanza en escoger a los cinco miembros era para que no se
tenga el tiempo suficiente para debatir nuevas propuestas. Y seguir con lo
mismo ¿Hasta cuando?

Y que casualidad que usted Avri Doria tiene el paquete salvador, y el resto
tenga que votar como carneros por lo que Ud. a propuesto, que no es mas que
lo mismo de siempre.

Se nota que los conservadores no quieren la modernización ¿Hay algo?

Me imagino que el elegido seguirá la política del avestruz.

Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos poner a la
tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos emergentes y
simplemente y sutilmente se los negamos, ¿intereses creados?

Por favor denme una explicación razonable y no de políticas conservadoras
establecidas



*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/13 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

>
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> > [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
> >
> > As the deadline for raising issues has now passed, no new issues will
> > be added to the below list of issues under consideration unless I have
> > made a mistake and overlooked an issue that was actually raised before
> > the deadline.
> >
> > Here is my current list of issues that we need to resolve (the one
> > that has been closed already by the last update remove already)...
> >
> > In the following, quotation indicates the parts of the issues list that
> > have remained unchanged since the last update.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >> The decision process is going to be:
> >> - Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current
> >> text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
> >> - If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
> >>  the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
> >> - If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects
> >>  to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
> >>  proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
> >>  current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
> >>  unchanged in that regard.
> >> - If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
> >>  resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
> >>  improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft
> >> text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
> >>  will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
> >>  try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
> >>  charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
> >>  enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
> >>
> >>
> >> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
> >>
> >>
> >> Paragraph 1
> >> ===========
> >> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
> >> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
> >> way forward:"
> >>
> >> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
> >> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words
> >> on the process that was followed."
> >>
> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
> >> will be added.
> >>
>
> Norbert, you have frequently writen about your process.  extract a few of
> your sentence.  something like:
>
> Co-cos put out a call, we have a common doc that allowed for comments by
> the paragraph, we had list discussions. we went  through a repeat process
> of calling for consensus, we had  last call for members only, the co-cos
> called consensus, we were done.
>
> >>
> >> Paragraph 2
> >> ===========
> >> Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
> >> IGF Improvements"
> >>
> >> Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
> >> addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
> >> seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the
> >> IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
> >> implemented."
> >
> > Parminder replied: "“Review by IGF’ looks a good thing to speak of, but
> > how doe sthis review happen — by MAG appointed panelists with their
> > ‘recs’ going back to MAG to ‘consider’….. We are into very sticky
> > territory here…. It is dangerous to seek subversion of all processes –
> > CSTD WG was a multistakeholder process that adopted recs with
> > consensus. I dont understand why and how does now MAG want to become
> > the bigeest authourity in gobal IG of course in the name of the
> > undefinable mass called the IGF, and purporting to be speaking for it."
>
> As I recommended.  MAG needs to recommend implementation of any of these
> so-called multistakeholder recommendations.  To do this they first subject
> it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment byt the IGF body
> politic.
>
> >
> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >> the draft text.
>
> Insert:
>
> Before MAG  implements of any of the CSTD WG recommendations, we recommend
> that they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open
> comment by the IGF body politic.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Paragraph 3
> >> ===========
> >> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> >> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
> >> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
> >> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and
> >> form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."
> >>
> >> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
> >> does it “really need to do”?"
> >>
> >> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
> >> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
> >> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
> >> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
> >> of."
> >>
> >>
> >> Paragraph 4
> >> ===========
> >> Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
> >> IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
> >>
> >> Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
> >> on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF
> >> itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review
> >> them and should put out a call for consultations. After that
> >> consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and
> >> what not to implement."
> >>
> >> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
> >> about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
> >> the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
> >
> > Parminder replied: "THis change suggested by Avri is completely
> > unacceptable… And it is a very very substantive point which in any case
> > should first be discussed in the big group…. Who gives the right to the
> > MAG to self appoint itself in a role of power, when no one gave it that
> > power… This is something I beleive a group within the MAG is trying to
> > do at present, and IGC’s statement cannot become an instrument to back
> > this highly problematic move."
> >
> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >> the draft text.
> >>
>
> see the response above.
>
> >>
> >> Paragraph 10
> >> ============
> >> Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
> >> propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013
> >> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
> >> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
> >> and institutions involved in this process?”
> >>
> >> Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
> >> myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do
> >> not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not
> >> agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle,
> >> more that it already is?"
> >
> > Parminder replied to Avri's comment: "Avri seem to agee that NN is a
> > key architectural principle – that much agreement is enough. If we do
> > not agree on what it means that is what we will like to thrash out at
> > the IGF…. Outside narrow IG CS community obsessed with process issues,
> > after FoE, NN is almost universally seen as ‘the’ key IG issue. (Wasnt
> > ENTO proposal at WCIT, the main pre WCIT rallying point, also abut NN)"
>
> I am fine with saying that we think the best effort network for all is the
> best idea..
>
> >
> >> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
> >> enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
>
> It is clear in everyones mind.  Just the images are completely different.
>
>
> >> Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
> >> legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
> >> my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is
> >> not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
> >> develop a shared understanding."
> >>
> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >> the draft text.
> >>
>
> "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
> propose that the following policy question
>
> be included as a workshop topic  for
>
> 2013
> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
> and institutions involved in this process?”
>
>
> >>
> >> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
> >> =============================
> >> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
> >> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
> >>
> >> Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
> >> significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
> >> topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
> >> on Human Rights as a general theme?"
> >
> > Parminder replied: "I will like to stick with the proposed topic about
> > ‘meaningful participation of all stkaeholders in IG’… Cant understand
> > when almost every global IG document seem to focus on
> > multistakeholerism, why the need to promote it as well as understand
> > its full implications should not be the overall theme for a year."
> >
> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
> >> the draft text.
>
> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
>
> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
>
>
> -----
>
> to be continued...
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130213/ad3296d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 11:44:42 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:44:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
	<20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
	<DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
	<20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > in order to perhaps explain better where I'm coming from... what
> > we're doing in developing an IGC "written contribution", especially
> > during the consensus process phase, is part of what the IGC mission
> > statement calls "representation of civil society contributions in
> > Internet governance processes"... I would suggest that if you want
> > to be part of a group representing civil society in any topic area,
> > you need to be deeply immersed in civil society thinking
> 
> Please define this "civil society thinking".

Ok, here's how I see this…

The Council of Europe's Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation
in the Decision-Making Process
<https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM%282009%29148> has what is IMO a
good characterization of what I'd call “civil society organizations”,
calling them “NGOs”:

   “In relation to this Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation
   the term is taken to refer to organised civil society including
   voluntary groups, non-profit organisations, associations,
   foundations, charities, as well as geographic or interest-based
   community and advocacy groups. The core activities of NGOs are
   focused on values of social justice, human rights, democracy and the
   rule of law. In these areas the purpose of NGOs is to promote causes
   and improve the lives of people.”

There are also individuals engaging with the same kind of motivation.

These civil society organizations and like-minded individuals interact
with each other and form a community.

In this community there is a continuum of more or less broadly shared
assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitute a way of
viewing reality, and of thinking about how to engage to improve it.

That continuum is what I mean with "civil society thinking".

>  in that topic area. Of course
> > it is possible to achieve this kind of immersion while having a
> > different (typically, non civil society) day job during which one
> > works in a different topic area. I don't believe that it is
> > possible to be in such a way immersed in civil society thinking in
> > a topic area while at the same time representing business interests
> > in the same topic area.
> 
> What if the business interests exactly coincide with CS interests in
> that topic area.

Even then I would argue that the distinction between CS representatives
and business representatives should be maintained.

For example how would you determine in the first place whether business
interests and CS interests coincide in a given topic area? I don't think
that this can possibly be done unless the CS representatives go about
figuring out what the "CS interests" are in a way that is reasonably
independent of business representatives.

That said, it is not really possible to divide the world neatly into
any of the various categorizations of stakeholder groups. For example,
where to put social entrepreneurship?

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  Wed Feb 13 11:44:47 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:44:47 -0800
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aO
 MQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrB
	KvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <138201ce0a09$80c5c070$82514150$@gmail.com>

Well the CS Declaration at WSIS 2003 is a pretty good place to start...
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf (with a
proposed update that some of us are currently working as per my invitation
of about a week ago perhaps even better but that is in the future...

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 7:46 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
consultation and MAG meeting)

Please define this "civil society thinking".

--
Cheers,

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



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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb 13 12:04:44 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:34:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
Message-ID: <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>

Avri

You have basic disagreement with, what I see as, all the three main 
substantive elements of the draft statement at present. So, I wonder 
where are we going to go from here. But still I will respond to the 
three issues...

1) There is a proposal in the draft statment to ask MAG - what it 
obviously its duty to do - to implement the recommendations of Working 
Group on IGF Improvements (WGIIGF). You disagree. WG IIGF was a 
multistakeholder group, duly constituted after an intense political 
process, which gave two open calls for inputs, held a few open 
consultations, and made a report by consensus. This report was then 
approved by the UN General Assembly. Now you do not want it implemented. 
You want what you call as the 'IGF body polity' to review the recs .... 
BTW, the 'IGF body politic' did give its comments to the WG process in 
various ways... Now what is this process of review by the IGF body 
politics that you suggest should be taken. Can you pl be explicit. (BTW 
IGC did hold a workshop on recs of WG IIGF at BAku.) I understand that 
*finally* you want the MAG to decide on what to implement or not... How 
is that process better than the current process that has worked over 2-3 
years and has concluded now.... Avri, what are up to I really fail to 
understand. Please make it clear. You are blocking a very important, and 
to my mind a relatively straight forward, input from the IGC to the MAG 
process.

2) You dont agree that a focussed policy question on network neutrality 
(NN) should be dealt centrally by the IGF (and want it relegated to a 
workshop of which suggestion I cant make anything becuase workshops on 
NN have been held in every IGF). Here you are subverting the main 
recommendation of the WG on IIGF that IGFs should have main sessions 
organised around focussed policy issues/ questions .... you are also 
blocking consideration of an issue - of net neutrality - which is key to 
many if not most people's progressive politics here. IGC statements to 
MAG have repeatedly sought NN issue to be taken up by the IGF... So why 
have you suddenly concluded that NN is not a clear enough issue.

3) You disagree with proposing 'Meaningful participaiton of all 
stakeholders in IG' as an overall theme... and I again cannot understand 
the reason. This proposal had strong support on the list... And if you 
also want to add another suggestion for the overall theme on 'human 
rights' please go ahead. But why oppose the 'Meaningful participaiton of 
all stakeholders in IG' theme..

parminder


On Wednesday 13 February 2013 08:24 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>> [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
>>
>> As the deadline for raising issues has now passed, no new issues will
>> be added to the below list of issues under consideration unless I have
>> made a mistake and overlooked an issue that was actually raised before
>> the deadline.
>>
>> Here is my current list of issues that we need to resolve (the one
>> that has been closed already by the last update remove already)...
>>
>> In the following, quotation indicates the parts of the issues list that
>> have remained unchanged since the last update.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>> The decision process is going to be:
>>> - Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current
>>> text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
>>> - If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
>>>   the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
>>> - If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects
>>>   to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
>>>   proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
>>>   current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
>>>   unchanged in that regard.
>>> - If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
>>>   resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
>>>   improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft
>>> text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
>>>   will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
>>>   try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
>>>   charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
>>>   enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
>>>
>>>
>>> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>>>
>>>
>>> Paragraph 1
>>> ===========
>>> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
>>> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
>>> way forward:"
>>>
>>> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
>>> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words
>>> on the process that was followed."
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
>>> will be added.
>>>
> Norbert, you have frequently writen about your process.  extract a few of your sentence.  something like:
>
> Co-cos put out a call, we have a common doc that allowed for comments by the paragraph, we had list discussions. we went  through a repeat process of calling for consensus, we had  last call for members only, the co-cos called consensus, we were done.
>
>>> Paragraph 2
>>> ===========
>>> Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
>>> IGF Improvements"
>>>
>>> Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
>>> addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
>>> seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the
>>> IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
>>> implemented."
>> Parminder replied: "“Review by IGF’ looks a good thing to speak of, but
>> how doe sthis review happen — by MAG appointed panelists with their
>> ‘recs’ going back to MAG to ‘consider’….. We are into very sticky
>> territory here…. It is dangerous to seek subversion of all processes –
>> CSTD WG was a multistakeholder process that adopted recs with
>> consensus. I dont understand why and how does now MAG want to become
>> the bigeest authourity in gobal IG of course in the name of the
>> undefinable mass called the IGF, and purporting to be speaking for it."
> As I recommended.  MAG needs to recommend implementation of any of these so-called multistakeholder recommendations.  To do this they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment byt the IGF body politic.
>
>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>> the draft text.
> Insert:
>
> Before MAG  implements of any of the CSTD WG recommendations, we recommend that they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment by the IGF body politic.
>
>>>
>>> Paragraph 3
>>> ===========
>>> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>>> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and
>>> form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>>>
>>> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>>> does it “really need to do”?"
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>>> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>>> of."
>>>
>>>
>>> Paragraph 4
>>> ===========
>>> Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
>>> IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
>>>
>>> Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
>>> on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF
>>> itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review
>>> them and should put out a call for consultations. After that
>>> consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and
>>> what not to implement."
>>>
>>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
>>> about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
>>> the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
>> Parminder replied: "THis change suggested by Avri is completely
>> unacceptable… And it is a very very substantive point which in any case
>> should first be discussed in the big group…. Who gives the right to the
>> MAG to self appoint itself in a role of power, when no one gave it that
>> power… This is something I beleive a group within the MAG is trying to
>> do at present, and IGC’s statement cannot become an instrument to back
>> this highly problematic move."
>>
>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>> the draft text.
>>>
> see the response above.
>
>>> Paragraph 10
>>> ============
>>> Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>>> propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013
>>> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>>> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>>> and institutions involved in this process?”
>>>
>>> Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
>>> myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do
>>> not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not
>>> agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle,
>>> more that it already is?"
>> Parminder replied to Avri's comment: "Avri seem to agee that NN is a
>> key architectural principle – that much agreement is enough. If we do
>> not agree on what it means that is what we will like to thrash out at
>> the IGF…. Outside narrow IG CS community obsessed with process issues,
>> after FoE, NN is almost universally seen as ‘the’ key IG issue. (Wasnt
>> ENTO proposal at WCIT, the main pre WCIT rallying point, also abut NN)"
> I am fine with saying that we think the best effort network for all is the best idea..
>
>>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
>>> enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
> It is clear in everyones mind.  Just the images are completely different.
>
>
>>> Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
>>> legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
>>> my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is
>>> not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
>>> develop a shared understanding."
>>>
>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>> the draft text.
>>>
> "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
> propose that the following policy question
>
> be included as a workshop topic  for
>
> 2013
> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
> and institutions involved in this process?”
>
>
>>> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>>> =============================
>>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>>>
>>> Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
>>> significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
>>> topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
>>> on Human Rights as a general theme?"
>> Parminder replied: "I will like to stick with the proposed topic about
>> ‘meaningful participation of all stkaeholders in IG’… Cant understand
>> when almost every global IG document seem to focus on
>> multistakeholerism, why the need to promote it as well as understand
>> its full implications should not be the overall theme for a year."
>>
>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>> the draft text.
> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
>
> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
>
>
> -----
>
> to be continued...


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

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Feb 13 12:22:55 2013
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:22:55 +0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtOJd4rEtAjnJcSZx9rkubtZxuTRo8R8kPGKhqDSzM4yqg@mail.gmail.com>

The MAG does not have the mandate to choose or outright reject
anything that is recommended by the WG-IGF.

In my personal view, the suggested text by Norbert is very well IGC's
perspective and does not need any alterations. The objections or
disagreement put forward do not, from my personal observation,
represent the Geneva and Tunis agreements and perspectives that
developing countries hold. I do not see where we from the developing
world have diverted from the WGIGF politic and why would some new view
to deal with things suddenly emerge and suddenly IGC would have a
totally different view on a multistakeholder led process.

MAG itself cannot implement anything. It is a programming MSG led
process that helps program the UNSG convene the IGF. It assists the
UNSG, does not take UN related decisions or etc. The mandate is to the
UNSG and from what we clearly know, the CSTD WG-IGF made
recommendations that through the UNSG, UNDESA and the IGF have to be
incorporated. These recommendations do not give the MAG some kind of
supreme power to move from an institutional form to an instrumental
form.

If there is something that we want to immediately see, is that, to
implement the recommendations of Working Group on IGF Improvements
(WG-IGF), period. If IGC can continue to raise this and encourage
this, we will do great benefit to the IGF proces. IGC should not
divert from what its member worked in the CSTD to do. IGC members of
the WG-IGF helped bring in the IGC perspective into the WG-IGF and we
should push for having all those recommendations that did reach the
final Chair's report as WG-IGF recommendations to be implemented as
soon as possible.

Best

Fouad



On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:04 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Avri
>
> You have basic disagreement with, what I see as, all the three main
> substantive elements of the draft statement at present. So, I wonder where
> are we going to go from here. But still I will respond to the three
> issues...
>
> 1) There is a proposal in the draft statment to ask MAG - what it obviously
> its duty to do - to implement the recommendations of Working Group on IGF
> Improvements (WGIIGF). You disagree. WG IIGF was a multistakeholder group,
> duly constituted after an intense political process, which gave two open
> calls for inputs, held a few open consultations, and made a report by
> consensus. This report was then approved by the UN General Assembly. Now you
> do not want it implemented. You want what you call as the 'IGF body polity'
> to review the recs .... BTW, the 'IGF body politic' did give its comments to
> the WG process in various ways... Now what is this process of review by the
> IGF body politics that you suggest should be taken. Can you pl be explicit.
> (BTW IGC did hold a workshop on recs of WG IIGF at BAku.) I understand that
> *finally* you want the MAG to decide on what to implement or not... How is
> that process better than the current process that has worked over 2-3 years
> and has concluded now.... Avri, what are up to I really fail to understand.
> Please make it clear. You are blocking a very important, and to my mind a
> relatively straight forward, input from the IGC to the MAG process.
>
> 2) You dont agree that a focussed policy question on network neutrality (NN)
> should be dealt centrally by the IGF (and want it relegated to a workshop of
> which suggestion I cant make anything becuase workshops on NN have been held
> in every IGF). Here you are subverting the main recommendation of the WG on
> IIGF that IGFs should have main sessions organised around focussed policy
> issues/ questions .... you are also blocking consideration of an issue - of
> net neutrality - which is key to many if not most people's progressive
> politics here. IGC statements to MAG have repeatedly sought NN issue to be
> taken up by the IGF... So why have you suddenly concluded that NN is not a
> clear enough issue.
>
> 3) You disagree with proposing 'Meaningful participaiton of all stakeholders
> in IG' as an overall theme... and I again cannot understand the reason. This
> proposal had strong support on the list... And if you also want to add
> another suggestion for the overall theme on 'human rights' please go ahead.
> But why oppose the 'Meaningful participaiton of all stakeholders in IG'
> theme..
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 13 February 2013 08:24 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>
>>> [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
>>>
>>> As the deadline for raising issues has now passed, no new issues will
>>> be added to the below list of issues under consideration unless I have
>>> made a mistake and overlooked an issue that was actually raised before
>>> the deadline.
>>>
>>> Here is my current list of issues that we need to resolve (the one
>>> that has been closed already by the last update remove already)...
>>>
>>> In the following, quotation indicates the parts of the issues list that
>>> have remained unchanged since the last update.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>>> The decision process is going to be:
>>>> - Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current
>>>> text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
>>>> - If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
>>>>   the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
>>>> - If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects
>>>>   to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
>>>>   proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
>>>>   current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
>>>>   unchanged in that regard.
>>>> - If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
>>>>   resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
>>>>   improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft
>>>> text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
>>>>   will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
>>>>   try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
>>>>   charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
>>>>   enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paragraph 1
>>>> ===========
>>>> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
>>>> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
>>>> way forward:"
>>>>
>>>> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
>>>> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words
>>>> on the process that was followed."
>>>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>>> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
>>>> will be added.
>>>>
>> Norbert, you have frequently writen about your process.  extract a few of
>> your sentence.  something like:
>>
>> Co-cos put out a call, we have a common doc that allowed for comments by
>> the paragraph, we had list discussions. we went  through a repeat process of
>> calling for consensus, we had  last call for members only, the co-cos called
>> consensus, we were done.
>>
>>>> Paragraph 2
>>>> ===========
>>>> Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
>>>> IGF Improvements"
>>>>
>>>> Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
>>>> addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
>>>> seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the
>>>> IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
>>>> implemented."
>>>
>>> Parminder replied: "“Review by IGF’ looks a good thing to speak of, but
>>> how doe sthis review happen — by MAG appointed panelists with their
>>> ‘recs’ going back to MAG to ‘consider’….. We are into very sticky
>>> territory here…. It is dangerous to seek subversion of all processes –
>>> CSTD WG was a multistakeholder process that adopted recs with
>>> consensus. I dont understand why and how does now MAG want to become
>>> the bigeest authourity in gobal IG of course in the name of the
>>> undefinable mass called the IGF, and purporting to be speaking for it."
>>
>> As I recommended.  MAG needs to recommend implementation of any of these
>> so-called multistakeholder recommendations.  To do this they first subject
>> it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment byt the IGF body
>> politic.
>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>>> the draft text.
>>
>> Insert:
>>
>> Before MAG  implements of any of the CSTD WG recommendations, we recommend
>> that they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open
>> comment by the IGF body politic.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Paragraph 3
>>>> ===========
>>>> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>>>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>>>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>>>> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and
>>>> form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>>>>
>>>> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>>>> does it “really need to do”?"
>>>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>>>> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>>>> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>>>> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>>>> of."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paragraph 4
>>>> ===========
>>>> Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
>>>> IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
>>>>
>>>> Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
>>>> on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF
>>>> itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review
>>>> them and should put out a call for consultations. After that
>>>> consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and
>>>> what not to implement."
>>>>
>>>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
>>>> about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
>>>> the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
>>>
>>> Parminder replied: "THis change suggested by Avri is completely
>>> unacceptable… And it is a very very substantive point which in any case
>>> should first be discussed in the big group…. Who gives the right to the
>>> MAG to self appoint itself in a role of power, when no one gave it that
>>> power… This is something I beleive a group within the MAG is trying to
>>> do at present, and IGC’s statement cannot become an instrument to back
>>> this highly problematic move."
>>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>>> the draft text.
>>>>
>> see the response above.
>>
>>>> Paragraph 10
>>>> ============
>>>> Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>>>> propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013
>>>> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>>>> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>>>> and institutions involved in this process?”
>>>>
>>>> Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
>>>> myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do
>>>> not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not
>>>> agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle,
>>>> more that it already is?"
>>>
>>> Parminder replied to Avri's comment: "Avri seem to agee that NN is a
>>> key architectural principle – that much agreement is enough. If we do
>>> not agree on what it means that is what we will like to thrash out at
>>> the IGF…. Outside narrow IG CS community obsessed with process issues,
>>> after FoE, NN is almost universally seen as ‘the’ key IG issue. (Wasnt
>>> ENTO proposal at WCIT, the main pre WCIT rallying point, also abut NN)"
>>
>> I am fine with saying that we think the best effort network for all is the
>> best idea..
>>
>>>> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
>>>> enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
>>
>> It is clear in everyones mind.  Just the images are completely different.
>>
>>
>>>> Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
>>>> legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
>>>> my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is
>>>> not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
>>>> develop a shared understanding."
>>>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>>> the draft text.
>>>>
>> "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>> propose that the following policy question
>>
>> be included as a workshop topic  for
>>
>> 2013
>> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>> and institutions involved in this process?”
>>
>>
>>>> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>>>> =============================
>>>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>>>> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>>>>
>>>> Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
>>>> significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
>>>> topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
>>>> on Human Rights as a general theme?"
>>>
>>> Parminder replied: "I will like to stick with the proposed topic about
>>> ‘meaningful participation of all stkaeholders in IG’… Cant understand
>>> when almost every global IG document seem to focus on
>>> multistakeholerism, why the need to promote it as well as understand
>>> its full implications should not be the overall theme for a year."
>>>
>>>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>>>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>>>> the draft text.
>>
>> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
>>
>> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> to be continued...
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 12:27:27 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:27:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution -> proposed footnote on process
In-Reply-To: <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130213182727.0f1918ed@quill.bollow.ch>

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> >> Paragraph 1
> >> ===========
> >> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
> >> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
> >> way forward:"
> >> 
> >> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
> >> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few
> >> words on the process that was followed."
> >> 
> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
> >> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
> >> will be added.
> >> 
> 
> Norbert, you have frequently writen about your process.  extract a
> few of your sentence

Ok, since you insist :-)

I hereby propose a footnote to be added at the end of paragraph 1, with
the following text: "These comments have been developed, in a bottom-up
manner, using the following process: Using the mailing list and online
working area of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, comments
were gathered and initial drafts for the statement were created in an
informal manner. Following that, the statement has been formalized by
means of a formal consensus process, during which the civil society
representatives who are members of the caucus were able to raise issues
about the draft statement, such as suggestions for additions, deletions
and changes. These issues were then discussed with the goal of finding
a phrasing that would be acceptable to all who participated in the
discussion. Those points on which it was not possible to reach
consensus were deleted from the draft statement. The result is a
statement which therefore reflects the consensus of the Civil Society
Internet Governance Caucus."

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 12:39:41 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:39:41 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part B Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation and
 MAG meeting
Message-ID: <2E851E29-715A-4954-8B2A-B3B2CC7A8D60@acm.org>

> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Nick's comment
>> ===================================
>> 
> 
> ....
> 
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
>> should limit the number of workshops, remove the text relating to
>> that point, resulting in the following text for paragraph 14, with the
>> possible change from the above proposed resolution added in brackets:
>> "Even then a reduction of the number of main sessions is necessary.
>> The specific choice of main session topics should vary year by year to
>> address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues everywhere.
>> [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and
>> new voices should be prioritised over those who have been heard from
>> many times.]"
> 
> 
> Paragraphs 13 + 14 / Parminder's comment
> ========================================
> Current text of paragraph 13: "Main sessions and workshops should not
> be competing with each other, as they are not substitutes.  Workshops
> are the best forum for self-selected groups to exchange information,
> opinions and experiences.  These can be more productive than main
> sessions, but are often limited to narrow communities of interest and
> can therefore lack external impact.  Main sessions are better for
> bringing the insights developed through workshops and dynamic
> coalition members to the broader community of IGF participants,
> including those with influence over or connections to processes of
> policy development. Main sessions have the potential to allow for
> high-level consensus-building and strategising on how these insights
> can be reflected in policy and/or technical processes elsewhere,
> sometimes across issue areas: for example, messages on critical
> Internet resources might also be relevant to those involved in
> security or openness issues and vice versa. Therefore, main sessions
> should not be treated as just “big workshops” relevant only to those
> with topical interests, but should be for the broadest possible
> segment of the IGF community to attend. Consequently, the programme
> should be restructured so that main sessions and workshops are not
> happening at the same time. Maybe the IGF could be extended to five
> says?"
> 
> Current text of paragraph 14, with the possible changes from the above
> proposed resolutions marked by brackets: "Even then a reduction of the
> number of main sessions [and a reduction of the number of workshops] is
> necessary. The specific choice of main session topics should vary year
> by year to address truly “hot topics” that are on the tips of tongues
> everywhere. [There should not be ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous
> IGFs and new voices should be prioritised over those who have been
> heard from many times.]"

I disagree with [and a reduction of the number of workshops]
or rather i am fine with it being in brackets until it is deleted.


> 
> Parminder has attached the following comment to paragraph 13, in
> response to Avri's comment: "Main sessions remain the main part of IGFs
> and should not be reduced or truncated."

I disagree.  They are the fluff of the IGF, and for the most part are just for show.


> 
> Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus to recommend a
> reduction of main sessions, remove the text relating to that point. If
> the two preceding proposed resolutions are also accepted, this results
> in the following text for paragraph 14: "The specific choice of main
> session topics should vary year by year to address truly “hot topics”
> that are on the tips of tongues everywhere. There should not be
> ‘reruns’ of sessions held at previous IGFs and new voices should be
> prioritised over those who have been heard from many times."

I can agree to this.

> 
> 
>> Paragraph 15
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 15: "The formats of the main sessions should
>> be varied more. 3 hours is generally too long, some were poorly
>> attended in Baku and there were many grumbled complaints about poor
>> content, poor preparation, repeating issues from previous years, etc.
>> Some main sessions need better preparation (and some were good –
>> transcripts illustrate the differences), the MAG has an important fole
>> to fulfil in regarding to ensuring good main sessions. Invite speakers
>> early.  Find funds to support speakers. Planning of the sessions
>> should be more open and transparent."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "The reason main session are ignored is because
>> they are old fashioned pabulum spooning opportunities. They are too
>> big for real participation by attendees, so they end up panels that
>> seem to even bore many of the panelists"
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.
>> 
>> 

Proposed solution: drop the paragragh.

>> Paragraph 16
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 16: "It would be good to have one main
>> session with a completely different outcome-oriented format that is
>> more actively facilitated, for example a “speed dialogue” or a
>> “moderated debate”. Amongst the most important foundations for this
>> sort of format is that the participants need to be empowered (ie. they
>> will produce something at the end), and that the power imbalances
>> between them are eliminated for the duration of the exercise (through
>> the way in which the process is facilitated)."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I think this is fine for workshop and even for
>> part of amin session, but fear a whole main session of this would just
>> be a garble."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.
>> 

Proposed solution: drop the paragraph.

>> 
>> Paragraph 17
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 17: "Taking stock and emerging issues:  Mix
>> the two sessions, that then justifies 3 hours.  This will probably be
>> best held on the final morning (i.e. emerging issues become issues the
>> IGF thinks emerging as important for the coming year(s))."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I think taking stick is relatively unimportant
>> since it is really just self aggrandizement. I think the emerging
>> issues is possible the most important and relevant of the main session
>> and should be one of the list bringing together all the emerging
>> issues that have come up during the week and those which were still
>> not advanced enough to be covered."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

Proposed solution: drop the paragraph.

Add paragraph:  Emerging issues set the stage for the problems that need to be faced by Internet governance in the coming year. This session should point the way to the work that needs to be done, so that the IGF stakeholders can come out of the meeting with an understanding of the work to be done in the coming year.  This session should get greater emphasis and should include possible ways forward.  Ie. it should be rebranded: Emerging issues and the Ways Forward.  this session could include "Inputs from the IGF' that could then be made available within the Ig ecosystem.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 19
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 19: "Critical Internet Resources was a
>> strong session in Baku, this justifies 3 hours.  Keep this."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I think this may be getting old. I think that if
>> it becomes a review of the existing mechanisms, it may be worth doing,
>> but just to say the same things over and over and over year after year
>> after year is just unproductive."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

Replace paragraph with:

Continuing focus on cIr remains important and should be the focus of continuing workshops emphasizing specific substantive issues and the current state of multistakeholder modalities in the various cIr management institutions.  At this point, the main session on cIr is not necessary, though there may be references to cIr brought into the Emerging Issues and the Ways Forward session based on the outcomes from the workshops.  


>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 20
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 20: "New theme: Enhanced Cooperation.
>> Sessions in mixed formats over 1 day, e.g. Morning expert panel
>> session 2 hours. Follow by a long break where people encouraged to
>> join self-organizing small groups (there probably needs to be active
>> facilitation of the process to encourage small groups to form with a
>> good mix of stakeholder categories) to discuss a few set questions and
>> ideas from the morning panel. Afternoon, 2 hour moderated session with
>> audience only, no panel/experts etc.  Bring back comments from the
>> small groups."
>> 
>> Avri has commented: "I agree that this is a good direction to go in
>> and should be one of the two major focuses of the upcoming IGF –
>> other than Human Rights."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

Proposed solution: leave it as is.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 21 / suggestion to not reference "MS framework of
>> commitments"
>> ========================================================================
>> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
>> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
>> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in
>> Baku to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations
>> on Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a
>> “compendium” as a first step towards something like a
>> multistakeholder framework of commitments on Internet Governance
>> Principles. Bali has to take the next step and the MAG should pave
>> the way for a more comprehensive and analytical approach. It would be
>> very good as well to link this into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>> 
>> Parminder commented: "A 'MS framework of commitments of IG principles'
>> was just one of the several proposals on the way/ manner to go forward
>> with developing Internet principles, and the nature of the ultimate
>> output of the process. There are many others. I do not agree to use
>> one specific proposal in this direction in the common IGC proposal...
>> There are people for instance who have at earlier times sought a
>> framework convention on the Internet (ITfC, IGP, APC). So lets not
>> associate our statement with one particular approach, about which,
>> for one, I have specific and clear reservations."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Remove the implied endorsement of the "MS
>> framework of commitments", resulting in the following new text for
>> paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and principles. One day,
>> perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced cooperation.  Or try
>> something different. There was a proposal in Baku to summarize all
>> (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on Principles” (25+) of
>> the last three years and to produce a “compendium”. Bali has to take
>> the next step and the MAG should pave the way for a more comprehensive
>> and analytical approach. It would be very good as well to link this
>> into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>> 

Looks like a good solution to me.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraphs 21 and 22 / suggestions to add further points
>> ========================================================
>> Current text of paragraph 21: "New theme: Internet rights and
>> principles. One day, perhaps same format as suggested for enhanced
>> cooperation.  Or try something different. There was a proposal in Baku
>> to summarize all (national/regional/sectoral) “IG Declarations on
>> Principles” (25+) of the last three years and to produce a
>> “compendium” as a first step towards something like a
>> multistakeholder framework of commitments on Internet Governance
>> Principles. Bali has to take the next step and the MAG should pave
>> the way for a more comprehensive and analytical approach. It would be
>> very good as well to link this into the upcoming WSIS +10 (2015)"
>> 
>> Current text of paragraph 22: "The development aspect of Internet
>> Governance has been generally overlooked in spite of the official
>> choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF,  and too often “governance” is
>> lost as discussion focuses on IT for development.  Open specific
>> public comment on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May
>> meeting to decide on topics and format."
>> 
>> Robert Guerra commented on paragraph 21: "Internet Rights theme –
>> specifically “Human Rights” was proposed at IGF Open consultation in
>> Feb 2012. Substantial conversation took place. No consensus from MAG
>> to proceed unfortunately."
>> 
>> Robert Guerra further commented on paragraph 21: "Development agenda –
>> which is key aspect of Para. that creates IGF & WSIS II (TUnis) should
>> also be key issue / theme in Bali (in my opinion)"
>> 
>> Norbert Bollow replied to Robert Guerra: "Perhaps we could strengthen
>> paragraph 22 a bit… I’d very much appreciate concrete textual
>> suggestions to that effect."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "As part of the Human rights overal themes this seems
>> worth doing."
>> 
>> Nick Ashton-Hart commented on paragraph 22: "Given that WSIS+10 and
>> the review of the Millenium Development Goals are taking place in
>> 2015, why not bring the MDG follow up into the discussion of IG for
>> development?"
>> 
>> Baudouin Schombe replied to Nick Ashton-Hart: "I support the proposal
>> of Nick and I think it would be a stone several times. This is also a
>> very good opportunity to evaluate the broad guidelines of the WSIS
>> Action Plan (2003)"
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Add some additional points to paragraph 22,
>> resulting in the following new text for paragraph 22: "The development
>> aspect of Internet Governance has been generally overlooked in spite
>> of the official choice of the theme for the 2012 IGF, and too often
>> “governance” is lost as discussion focuses on IT for development. [A
>> question that should be considered in this context is: “How can human
>> rights based Internet governance principles support development?”]
>> [The development agenda, which is a key aspect of the part of the
>> Tunis agenda that creates the IGF, should also be a key theme in
>> Bali.] [Given that WSIS+10 and the review of the Millenium
>> Development Goals are taking place in 2015, why not bring the MDG
>> follow up into the discussion of IG for development?] [Also the WSIS
>> of Action from 2003 could be looked at.] Open specific public comment
>> on design/scope of IG4D session. Bring back to the May meeting to
>> decide on topics and format."

I think this looks ok, including the language in the []s.


>> 
>> Note: In the above, I have marked four separate insertions. If you
>> object, please indicate specifically which insertion(s) you object to.
>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 26
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 26: "At the 2012 IGF, there were too many
>> workshops. Cut to between 80 and 100.  Make this target number known
>> when the call for applications is published, might be the first time
>> quite a large number of proposals are rejected (might think about
>> implications of this for the IGF), people should expect to be
>> disappointed"
>> 
>> Avri commented: "I disagree about their being too many workshops.
>> there should be as many workshops as there is room and good
>> workshops. Yes the MAG should have standards and should be strict
>> about workshops meeting those standards, but there should not be an
>> artificial shortage of opportunities for workshops."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Since we do not have consensus on whether MAG
>> should limit the number of workshops, remove this paragraph in its
>> entirety. (The point about having standards and being strict about
>> those standards is covered in paragraph 27.)

ok with me.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 28
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 28: "For workshops, keep the current themes
>> (access, SOP [security/openness/privacy], IG4D [Internet governance
>> for development], CIR [critical Internet resources], emerging
>> issues)."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "I think the categories should be examined. I see
>> little point in CIR, unless it becomes review of CIR institutions."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.


suggested replacement:

MAG should put out an immediate call for workshop themes.  It should then review these themes and put out requests for workshops pertinent to these themes.  In developing the themes, while it should review the historic themes, it should also review new ways of approaching some themes which have remained constant over the years, but in which little progress was made.  the MAG should also be careful to judge workshop proposals on their relevance to current Internet governance circumstances as discussed in contributions and in the consultations, and not just try to force workshops into pre-arranged categories.



>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 29
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 29: "Have the MAG better define Internet
>> Governance, how it must be considered in workshop proposals (there are
>> other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG issues).  Use an evaluation
>> form for workshops (at the moment don’t even know if a room was empty
>> or overflowing, simple count a good idea.)  However, indications are
>> that while there were too many workshops in Baku many were strong in
>> content, well received.  MAG should not cut what looks like a success
>> to favor the floundering main sessions."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "Internet governance is well defined between the WGIG
>> report, the WGIG Background report and the TA, i do not see the MAG
>> getting into a discussion of what Ig is? Perhaps as a workshop idea,
>> people can examine these many working definitions to see if there is a
>> cause for updating, but the MAG is not the place for this. The MAG
>> should be a doer, not another body on introspecting academics. thee is
>> a place for academic conjecture, but the MAG is not it."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Make the text of paragraph 29 clearer so
>> that it cannot be misunderstood as asking for a redefinition of
>> Internet Governance, resulting in the following new text for paragraph
>> 29: "Clearly state in the call for workshop proposals that the
>> proposed workshops shall relate to Internet Governance (as the
>> term is defined in the WGIG report, the WGIG Background report and the
>> Tunis Agenda); there are other spaces in WSIS follow-up for non-IG
>> issues.  Use an evaluation form for workshops (at the moment don’t
>> even know if a room was empty or overflowing, simple count a good
>> idea.)  However, indications are that while there were too many
>> workshops in Baku, many were strong in content, well received.  MAG
>> should not cut what looks like a success to favor the floundering main
>> sessions."

I am ok with this.

>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 30
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 30: "Merging is not the always the solution,
>> it’s too easy an answer for MAG in their evaluation to say merge
>> simply because proposals have similar words in the title.  If merging
>> proposed then the new workshop needs support or tendency to end up
>> with 2 workshops in the same space (merge in name only)."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "Merging is rarely the solution. If two are the same
>> the MAG should pick one based on its objective criteria, and make them
>> responsible integrating what they can of the other."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Replace paragraph 30 with the text of Avri's
>> comment.
>> 
>> 

ok
slight improved wording without changing what i meant:

Past experience has shown that merging workshops rarely serves to improve a workshop.  If two workshop proosals are similar or the same, the MAG should use the criteria that have been established for workshops to pick the one that best meets those criteria.  It should then be the responsibility of the workshop that was chosen to integrate what they can from the proposal of the rejected workshop(s) without overloading or otherwise diluting the content of the selcted workshop.


>> Paragraph 31
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 31: "The rules for other sessions (open
>> forums, dynamic coalition, etc.) should be clarified."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "No matter how clear they are made, and they were
>> rather clear last year, people will abuse those definitions. the point
>> is for the MAG and secretariat to live up to the defintiions and
>> criteria."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

Add a sentence:

the MAg and Secretariat must endeavor to not let outside pressures force them into accepting sessions that do no meet the rules established for sessions.


>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 32
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 32: "The IGF pre-events have to be revisited
>> and should receive more attention in terms of planning and projection
>> as  these are receiving a lot of attention by participants."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "And yet these need to remain separate from the IGF so
>> they are not reduced to lowest common form as many other session under
>> the auspice of the IGF are."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.
>> 

The IGF pre-events have added a lot to the richness of the IGF experience.  These events should remain independent, but should receive more timely attentions in terms of scheduling, planning and advertisement.


>> 
>> Paragraph 36
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 36: "On-site Internet connectivity should be
>> IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack."
>> 
>> Robert Guerra commented: "Suggest that DNSSEC also be provided."
>> 
>> Norbert Bollow replied: "How would they “provide” DNSSEC over an
>> unsecured wireless connection??? I’d suggest that if while using such
>> connections you want the security benefits that DNSSEC can provide,
>> you need to run an DNSSEC-enabled DNS resolver on your own device."
>> 
>> Adam commented: "Rather than getting into the specifics of technical
>> and other specifications for the IGF site, suggest we ask that the
>> logistics section of the host country agreement be made public so
>> stakeholders can comment."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: Add the following text as a new paragraph between
>> paragraphs 35 and 36: "A draft of the logistics plan for internet
>> connectivity and other aspects of the meeting venue should be made
>> public, and stakeholders should be invited to comment."
>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 46
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 46: "The sudden shift of Open Consultations
>> and MAG meetings from Geneva to France for February 2013 without open
>> consultation and comments from the community puts a severe logistical
>> pressure on participation for those that find it a challenge to
>> already participate in such meetings. This shift enables only certain
>> individuals to participate that can freely move around EU but for
>> people that need to acquire visas to travel to Switzerland and
>> participate from outside of Europe are posed with a big challenge.
>> Should they apply to Swiss or to the French and how does one explain
>> why one is taking the visa of one country to participate in the other
>> and how does the IGF Secretariat plan to manage this?"
>> 
>> Avri commented: "I do not understand this. Is the problem that they
>> need 2 visas? that I understand. I do not understand the choice
>> issue."
>> 
>> Norbert Bollow replied: "I believe the problem is in regard to people
>> from countries whose citizens have a hard time getting visas for
>> Europe. Applying for a Swiss visa will be hard to justify for
>> attending a meeting in Paris. On the other hand, the IGF secretariat
>> (which happens to be in Geneva, Switzerland) probably does not have
>> the kind of relationship with the French authorities that would allow
>> it to assist with applications for French visas."

Why would someone apply for a Swiss visa to attend a meeting in France?

I thnk there is a complicated issue:

- on one hand, we want to minimize travel and combine the IGF consultations with other meetings is we can, in fact this one one of the original thought behind the forum that it would meet in conjunction with other events so that not only would travel be minimized by synergies would be encouraged.

- on the other hand the visa regime sucks for people living in many countries.


>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.

I am not sure how we solve this.  I would like to see nations convinced to drop visa requirements for all attendees at Ig meetings, but that is a fantasy.  Perhaps this is something we can call for:

Additional paragraph:  Any country that hosts an Internet governance or management meeting should establish special Visa wavers for attendance and should set up offices for Visa assistance before being approved as a location for an Internet governance or management meetings.

I would think something like this would be a good goal for ALL Ig meeting, not just WSIS and IGF.

In terms of help, since this meeting is under the auspices of the host UNESCO, I would contact them for Visa assistance.


>> 
>> 
>> Paragraph 50
>> ============
>> Current text of paragraph 50: "IGF should put out a call for host
>> country expression of interest, with clearly laid out principles and
>> process for selection, instead of simply waiting for offers."
>> 
>> Avri commented: "ho about adding the notion of a public comment on the
>> applicant hosts before a desion is made. And who is to make this
>> decision. I beleive that is something that the MAG should make a
>> recommendation on to the powers that be."
>> 
>> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> the draft text.
> 

Add sentence:

These expressions of interest should be subject to IGF stakeholder consultation and MAG recommendation before they are approved as a location for IGF meetings.
> 

thanks for this great layout and all the effort to get this done right.

avri


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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 12:42:29 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:42:29 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> proposed footnote on
 process
In-Reply-To: <20130213182727.0f1918ed@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <20130213182727.0f1918ed@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <51516802-3806-43BF-8046-45FD5B24264D@acm.org>

looks good to me.

avri

On 13 Feb 2013, at 12:27, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> ...
...

> Ok, since you insist :-)
> 
> I hereby propose a footnote to be added at the end of paragraph 1, with
> the following text: "These comments have been developed, in a bottom-up
> manner, using the following process: Using the mailing list and online
> working area of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, comments
> were gathered and initial drafts for the statement were created in an
> informal manner. Following that, the statement has been formalized by
> means of a formal consensus process, during which the civil society
> representatives who are members of the caucus were able to raise issues
> about the draft statement, such as suggestions for additions, deletions
> and changes. These issues were then discussed with the goal of finding
> a phrasing that would be acceptable to all who participated in the
> discussion. Those points on which it was not possible to reach
> consensus were deleted from the draft statement. The result is a
> statement which therefore reflects the consensus of the Civil Society
> Internet Governance Caucus."
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 


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

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

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

From avri at ella.com  Wed Feb 13 12:56:13 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:56:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>



Ah, the wrath that descends on one who disagrees.  Like music to my ear


On 13 Feb 2013, at 12:04, parminder wrote:

> Now you do not want it implemented. 


false, I do not wish it to be imposed from outside the IGF on the IGF.

I want the IGF to review and then implement as per the IGFs viewpoint.

As far as I am concerned the job of the UN and its various organs is to initiate the IGF, not rule it.


> Here you are subverting 

I am suggesting a different perspective.  Sorry times when a different perspective in the IGC is subversion.

I have long argued that NN is an overloaded term in which we all talk past each other.

Is it now a litmus test we use to call people not progressive enough?  

> But why oppose the 'Meaningful participaiton of all stakeholders in IG' theme..

Because I think we should be rather reviewing organization in terms of the Multistakeholder modalities, not once again saying Multistakeholder good.

Also because terms like Meaningful appear meaningless to me.

avri






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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 12:59:52 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:59:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtOJd4rEtAjnJcSZx9rkubtZxuTRo8R8kPGKhqDSzM4yqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <CAHuaJtOJd4rEtAjnJcSZx
 9rkubtZxuTRo8R8kPGKhqDSzM4yqg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BB08EA48-A02C-4F25-A667-A8D4B39D3C33@acm.org>


On 13 Feb 2013, at 12:22, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

> The MAG does not have the mandate to choose or outright reject
> anything that is recommended by the WG-IGF.


TYhat is exactly my point.  Of course the IGF has the right to reject the commands of the UN.

It certainly must honor them by considering them.  But I see no obligation for a freestanding IGF to accept them without question.

I disagree about the extent to which the WG-IGF was multistakeholder, but that is irrelevant.  It was an outside body that does not have hard oversight over the IGF.  We are an independent bottom-up organization, not a UN vassal. 

So while the UN should be honored and its view considered along with al other views, it cannot be allowed to command.

avri


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

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Feb 13 13:03:55 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:03:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
 <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ah, the wrath that descends on one who disagrees.  Like music to my ear
>
>
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 12:04, parminder wrote:
>
>> Now you do not want it implemented.
>
>
> false, I do not wish it to be imposed from outside the IGF on the IGF.
>
> I want the IGF to review and then implement as per the IGFs viewpoint.
>
> As far as I am concerned the job of the UN and its various organs is to initiate the IGF, not rule it.


+1 to all above!

>
>
>> Here you are subverting
>
> I am suggesting a different perspective.  Sorry times when a different perspective in the IGC is subversion.

The "civil society thought police" has found you lacking!

>
> I have long argued that NN is an overloaded term in which we all talk past each other.
>

+1


-- 
Cheers,

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

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

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

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

From nashton at ccianet.org  Wed Feb 13 13:05:16 2013
From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:05:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <F2E5E3DE-BC42-4930-A5EB-9B9C296E0643@ccianet.org>

Avri to BCC (since she'll get it from the list anyway)

Inline responses.

On 13 Feb 2013, at 16:25, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> in order to perhaps explain better where I'm coming from... what we're
> doing in developing an IGC "written contribution", especially during
> the consensus process phase, is part of what the IGC mission statement
> calls "representation of civil society contributions in Internet
> governance processes"... I would suggest that if you want to be part of
> a group representing civil society in any topic area, you need to be
> deeply immersed in civil society thinking in that topic area. Of course
> it is possible to achieve this kind of immersion while having a
> different (typically, non civil society) day job during which one works
> in a different topic area. I don't believe that it is possible to be in
> such a way immersed in civil society thinking in a topic area while at
> the same time representing business interests in the same topic area.

I am very aware of the process you are engaged in, I've been engaged in IG policy for many years now in various guises and I've followed this list and the CS work on IG for all of them. 

This is pretty simple: I am not my day job, and you are not yours. Your argument suggests to me that you take it as given that people are incapable of differentiating their views from that of their employer, or of turning off their advocacy of their employer's views from their own at any time. I don't believe this is true - in fact, I am absolutely certain it is not, I know many people who can do this.

<snip>

> In any case, your recent response to Parminder was to my ears very much
> an expression of an industry perspective.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but if you think that is true, you must not have much experience with industry representatives; from most sectors, the last thing you'd hear was what I said. That said you are welcome to your opinion :)

> That is not a contradiction with your claim that you're "an advocate
> for actual people". In fact, isn't it in a way the whole point of
> industry is that it exists to meet needs of actual people? Any company
> which doesn't do that is likely to go bankrupt quickly!

As I said to you, my job is not the totality of me, and my participation here is, to repeat, entirely in my personal capacity; if I were to put something that was CCIA's view forward it would be clearly labelled as such. I also disagree with your statement that 'industry exists to meet needs of actual people.' That is most definitely not why mainstream industry exists to do. It exists to make money. I think we can all think of instances where industry has proceeded to make money in ways that are demonstrably the opposite of meeting the needs of people. Just look at the financial crisis.

Separately, the charter of the IGC also doesn't conform to your view in my understanding of it. Below the relevant section:

"Membership
The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties. "

I am an individual, I am acting in my personal capacity, and I subscribe to the charter. Given my day job, I am entirely happy to forgo the right to vote in any undertaking where a vote is required. However, I have as much right as anyone else who meets the membership criteria to offer an opinion, or make a proposal, congruent with the Charter's aims and principles.

<snip>

> We civil society people however need to be careful to maintain our
> independence, and identity as civil society, and that we don't allow the
> positions that are appropriate for civil society to take to be watered
> down etc.

I'm pretty confident that this group of people is capable of maintaining its independence. I've followed it for many years now. There is zero possibility that someone can come along and co-opt this group into becoming someone else's mouthpiece. I don't think you give it enough credit with your statement.

<snip>


-- 
Regards,
 
Nick Ashton-Hart
Geneva Representative
Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA)
Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
email/IM (Jabber/GTalk): nashton at ccianet.org
Skype: nashtonhart
http://www.ccianet.org

Instead of sending cards to commemorate the festive season this year, CCIA Geneva has made a donation to Medecins sans Frontieres in the name of our member companies and our colleagues and friends in the Permanent Missions and UN system in Geneva

Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130213/f9ddf9d4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 13:18:01 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:18:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution -> possible replacement terms for
 NN?
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
	<3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
	<CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch>

McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> > I have long argued that NN is an overloaded term in which we all
> > talk past each other.
> +1

Here's an except from news coverage from when the Dutch network
neutrality law was passed:

  "Under the new law, mobile internet providers like KPN won't be able
  to charge for access to particular services like Skype or throttle
  traffic through them — both techniques that the company was intent on
  using to manage its mobile traffic.

  Some exceptional reasons, such as network congestion and security,
  are allowed for slowing down users' connections, but the general
  thrust of the law is that operators ought to be blind to the traffic
  they carry and treat all of it equally."

If we're not to call this type of law a "network neutrality law", what
should we call it?

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 13:56:21 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:56:21 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> possible replacement terms
 for NN?
In-Reply-To: <20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com> <20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org>

Hi,

> If we're not to call this type of law a "network neutrality law", what
> should we call it?

Call it something like "differential charging for content" or differential charging based on source or differential charging based on destination ...

That or some similar description is something that can be discussed. 

NN is just a container that we have thrown everything from differential service for maintenance packets to premium streaming services to differential charging for content ...  And when we do so, we lose track of what we are talking about and we wander around in circles.

Notice that they did not reference NN in the law.

I am not sure "Differential charging according to traffic type" is a good topic for a main theme or even a main session, but it is better then condemning a main session to the ambiguity of NN.

avri



On 13 Feb 2013, at 13:18, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>> I have long argued that NN is an overloaded term in which we all
>>> talk past each other.
>> +1
> 
> Here's an except from news coverage from when the Dutch network
> neutrality law was passed:
> 
>  "Under the new law, mobile internet providers like KPN won't be able
>  to charge for access to particular services like Skype or throttle
>  traffic through them — both techniques that the company was intent on
>  using to manage its mobile traffic.
> 
>  Some exceptional reasons, such as network congestion and security,
>  are allowed for slowing down users' connections, but the general
>  thrust of the law is that operators ought to be blind to the traffic
>  they carry and treat all of it equally."
> 
> If we're not to call this type of law a "network neutrality law", what
> should we call it?
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 


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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 14:20:10 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:20:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> possible replacement
 terms for NN?
In-Reply-To: <37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
	<3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
	<CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch>
	<37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch>

In the online draft, the policy question given in paragraph 10 reads:

“How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of
the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms and institutions
involved in this process?”

Would the following be acceptable as a replacement?

“How to maintain the principle (sometimes referred to as ‘net
neutrality’) that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
content of the data packets, nor on who specifically is the remote
party? What shall be the mechanisms and institutions involved in this
process?”

Greetings,
Norbert



Am Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:56:21 -0500
schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Hi,
> 
> > If we're not to call this type of law a "network neutrality law",
> > what should we call it?
> 
> Call it something like "differential charging for content" or
> differential charging based on source or differential charging based
> on destination ...
> 
> That or some similar description is something that can be discussed. 
> 
> NN is just a container that we have thrown everything from
> differential service for maintenance packets to premium streaming
> services to differential charging for content ...  And when we do so,
> we lose track of what we are talking about and we wander around in
> circles.
> 
> Notice that they did not reference NN in the law.
> 
> I am not sure "Differential charging according to traffic type" is a
> good topic for a main theme or even a main session, but it is better
> then condemning a main session to the ambiguity of NN.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 13:18, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> > McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> >>> I have long argued that NN is an overloaded term in which we all
> >>> talk past each other.
> >> +1
> > 
> > Here's an except from news coverage from when the Dutch network
> > neutrality law was passed:
> > 
> >  "Under the new law, mobile internet providers like KPN won't be
> > able to charge for access to particular services like Skype or
> > throttle traffic through them — both techniques that the company
> > was intent on using to manage its mobile traffic.
> > 
> >  Some exceptional reasons, such as network congestion and security,
> >  are allowed for slowing down users' connections, but the general
> >  thrust of the law is that operators ought to be blind to the
> > traffic they carry and treat all of it equally."
> > 
> > If we're not to call this type of law a "network neutrality law",
> > what should we call it?
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> 
> 


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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 14:34:44 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 20:34:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution -> recommendations of WG on IGF
 improvements
In-Reply-To: <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130213203444.66a13ddb@quill.bollow.ch>

I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to get consensus on how
binding / definitive the recommendations of WG on IGF improvements
should be taken to be.

I therefore propose that we develop a formulation that avoids taking a
position on that specific aspect, while communicating eagerness to see
those three specific recommendations implemented that we are citing.

Is that an acceptable path forward for the Caucus statement?

(Individual Caucus members would of course, independent of the Caucus
statement, be free make a written contribution of their own on whether
an additional consultative process is appropriate before the
recommendations of WG on IGF improvements are implemented.)

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 15:00:16 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:00:16 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> recommendations of WG on
 IGF improvements
In-Reply-To: <20130213203444.66a13ddb@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <20130213203444.66a13ddb@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <DA0E10C5-1436-4D48-86C1-E08325A77CB3@acm.org>

Hi,

I think it would be fine for the caucus to give its support to any of the recommendations of the WG-IGF.    And I have no gripe with supporting these three recommendations.

I am just against any presumption that this should be automatic because the CSTD & GA ordered it.

I also want to make sure that the IGC statement is not used in any manner to discredit the MAG and it full potential to act as advisors to the UNSG on any aspect of the IGF.  Though I do want to require them to always hold consultations  (online or face to face)before deciding. As someone who is not on the MAG, I want to strengthen its position as interpreters of the will of the IGF and the advisors to the UNSG or his representatives.  I do not want to relgate them to the role of a program committee.  The CSTD is not our oversight organization.


So for me it is a matter of neither stomping our foot with 'impatience' nor of making statement about immediate implementation, but about saying that we think these are good recommendations that we beleive the MAG should do something about.

It is more a matter of tone, of not surrendering the independence of the IGF and of not undercutting the MAG in its role as the one that advises the UNSG and that works with the Secretariat to effect any agreed upon changes after consultation with the stakeholders.

avri




On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to get consensus on how
> binding / definitive the recommendations of WG on IGF improvements
> should be taken to be.
> 
> I therefore propose that we develop a formulation that avoids taking a
> position on that specific aspect, while communicating eagerness to see
> those three specific recommendations implemented that we are citing.
> 
> Is that an acceptable path forward for the Caucus statement?
> 
> (Individual Caucus members would of course, independent of the Caucus
> statement, be free make a written contribution of their own on whether
> an additional consultative process is appropriate before the
> recommendations of WG on IGF improvements are implemented.)
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 


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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 15:22:26 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:22:26 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> possible replacement
 terms for NN?
In-Reply-To: <20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com> <20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch> <37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org> <20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <757A65E9-5533-43B4-A5C8-9C09DA151FE7@acm.org>


On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:20, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Would the following be acceptable as a replacement?
> 
> “How to maintain the principle (sometimes referred to as ‘net
> neutrality’) that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
> exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
> content of the data packets, nor on who specifically is the remote
> party? What shall be the mechanisms and institutions involved in this
> process?”


It is close, though I think it needs some wordsmithing.  A suggestion:

“
How to maintain the principle 

(referred to by some as ‘net neutrality’) 

that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
content of the data packets, nor shall it depend on source or destination
party?

How shall the  key architectural principle of best effort service for all user traffic 
in the global Internet be preserved?
”

thanks

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 15:45:57 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:45:57 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> recommendations of WG
 on IGF improvements
In-Reply-To: <DA0E10C5-1436-4D48-86C1-E08325A77CB3@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<20130213203444.66a13ddb@quill.bollow.ch>
	<DA0E10C5-1436-4D48-86C1-E08325A77CB3@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130213214557.493df26c@quill.bollow.ch>

So, would it work to just replace the sentence “Especially the
following recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements should be
implemented immediately:” with “In our view, the implementation of the
following three recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements is
very important:”?

Assuming that the proposed resolution to McTim's comment on paragraph 3
is accepted, the beginning of section A would then read as follows:

  A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements

  There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis a vis the
  fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy
  questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of.

  In our view, the implementation of the following three
  recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements is very important:

  (three quotes from the WG’s report
  http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf
  follow)

Is that acceptable?


Greetings,
Norbert


Am Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:00:16 -0500
schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Hi,
> 
> I think it would be fine for the caucus to give its support to any of
> the recommendations of the WG-IGF.    And I have no gripe with
> supporting these three recommendations.
> 
> I am just against any presumption that this should be automatic
> because the CSTD & GA ordered it.
> 
> I also want to make sure that the IGC statement is not used in any
> manner to discredit the MAG and it full potential to act as advisors
> to the UNSG on any aspect of the IGF.  Though I do want to require
> them to always hold consultations  (online or face to face)before
> deciding. As someone who is not on the MAG, I want to strengthen its
> position as interpreters of the will of the IGF and the advisors to
> the UNSG or his representatives.  I do not want to relgate them to
> the role of a program committee.  The CSTD is not our oversight
> organization.
> 
> 
> So for me it is a matter of neither stomping our foot with
> 'impatience' nor of making statement about immediate implementation,
> but about saying that we think these are good recommendations that we
> beleive the MAG should do something about.
> 
> It is more a matter of tone, of not surrendering the independence of
> the IGF and of not undercutting the MAG in its role as the one that
> advises the UNSG and that works with the Secretariat to effect any
> agreed upon changes after consultation with the stakeholders.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> > I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to get consensus on
> > how binding / definitive the recommendations of WG on IGF
> > improvements should be taken to be.
> > 
> > I therefore propose that we develop a formulation that avoids
> > taking a position on that specific aspect, while communicating
> > eagerness to see those three specific recommendations implemented
> > that we are citing.
> > 
> > Is that an acceptable path forward for the Caucus statement?
> > 
> > (Individual Caucus members would of course, independent of the
> > Caucus statement, be free make a written contribution of their own
> > on whether an additional consultative process is appropriate before
> > the recommendations of WG on IGF improvements are implemented.)
> > 
> > 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  Wed Feb 13 15:51:10 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:51:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> possible replacement
 terms for NN?
In-Reply-To: <757A65E9-5533-43B4-A5C8-9C09DA151FE7@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
 <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
 <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch> <37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org>
 <20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch> <757A65E9-5533-43B4-A5C8-9C09DA151FE7@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhpcYyaHpXRYJGN_rqCeiVHVts0gck48JXEPUE5U5E2jw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:20, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
>> Would the following be acceptable as a replacement?
>>
>> “How to maintain the principle (sometimes referred to as ‘net
>> neutrality’) that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
>> exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
>> content of the data packets, nor on who specifically is the remote
>> party? What shall be the mechanisms and institutions involved in this
>> process?”
>
>
> It is close, though I think it needs some wordsmithing.  A suggestion:
>
<snip>

> How shall the  key architectural principle of best effort service for all user traffic
> in the global Internet be preserved?

works for me.



-- 
Cheers,

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

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 16:01:26 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:01:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> possible replacement
 terms for NN?
In-Reply-To: <757A65E9-5533-43B4-A5C8-9C09DA151FE7@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
	<3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
	<CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch>
	<37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org>
	<20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch>
	<757A65E9-5533-43B4-A5C8-9C09DA151FE7@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130213220126.5ccb1db0@quill.bollow.ch>

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:20, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> > Would the following be acceptable as a replacement?
> > 
> > “How to maintain the principle (sometimes referred to as ‘net
> > neutrality’) that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
> > exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
> > content of the data packets, nor on who specifically is the remote
> > party? What shall be the mechanisms and institutions involved in
> > this process?”
> 
> 
> It is close, though I think it needs some wordsmithing.  A suggestion:
> 
> “
> How to maintain the principle 
> 
> (referred to by some as ‘net neutrality’) 
> 
> that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
> exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
> content of the data packets, nor shall it depend on source or
> destination party?
> 
> How shall the  key architectural principle of best effort service for
> all user traffic in the global Internet be preserved?
> ”

Hmm a customer who exchanges packets will almost invariably pay less
per packet than one who exchanges only a few, and I don't think that
that should be considered a violation of the principle in the first
of the questions.

So how about the following? (the only change is to replace "source or
destination party" with "the party with whom the packets are
exchanged") 

“
How to maintain the principle 

(referred to by some as ‘net neutrality’) 
 
that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
content of the data packets, nor shall it depend on the party with whom
the packets are exchanged?

How shall the key architectural principle of best effort service for
all user traffic in the global Internet be preserved?
”

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 16:03:39 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:03:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> possible replacement
 terms for NN?
In-Reply-To: <20130213220126.5ccb1db0@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
	<3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
	<CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch>
	<37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org>
	<20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch>
	<757A65E9-5533-43B4-A5C8-9C09DA151FE7@acm.org>
	<20130213220126.5ccb1db0@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130213220339.77c50c0c@quill.bollow.ch>

Am Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:01:26 +0100
schrieb Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:

> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:20, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > 
> > > Would the following be acceptable as a replacement?
> > > 
> > > “How to maintain the principle (sometimes referred to as ‘net
> > > neutrality’) that the price which an ISPs charges their customer
> > > for exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on
> > > the content of the data packets, nor on who specifically is the
> > > remote party? What shall be the mechanisms and institutions
> > > involved in this process?”
> > 
> > 
> > It is close, though I think it needs some wordsmithing.  A
> > suggestion:
> > 
> > “
> > How to maintain the principle 
> > 
> > (referred to by some as ‘net neutrality’) 
> > 
> > that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
> > exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
> > content of the data packets, nor shall it depend on source or
> > destination party?
> > 
> > How shall the  key architectural principle of best effort service
> > for all user traffic in the global Internet be preserved?
> > ”
> 
> Hmm a customer who exchanges packets will almost invariably pay less

Sorry, that should read "... a customer who exchanges MANY packets..."

> per packet than one who exchanges only a few, and I don't think that
> that should be considered a violation of the principle in the first
> of the questions.
> 
> So how about the following? (the only change is to replace "source or
> destination party" with "the party with whom the packets are
> exchanged") 
> 
> “
> How to maintain the principle 
> 
> (referred to by some as ‘net neutrality’) 
>  
> that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
> exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
> content of the data packets, nor shall it depend on the party with
> whom the packets are exchanged?
> 
> How shall the key architectural principle of best effort service for
> all user traffic in the global Internet be preserved?
> ”
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert


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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 16:08:15 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:08:15 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> recommendations of WG
 on IGF improvements
In-Reply-To: <20130213214557.493df26c@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <20130213203444.66a13ddb@quill.bollow.ch> <DA0E10C5-1436-4D48-86C1-E08325A77CB3@acm.org> <20130213214557.493df26c@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <07958B23-AE79-4A13-BCA4-96DDAEFF11F4@acm.org>

Hi,

For me yes, sort of.

I still have trouble with 'sense of impatience'  and would suggest 'sense of concern'

but that is just stylistic.

avri


On 13 Feb 2013, at 15:45, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> So, would it work to just replace the sentence “Especially the
> following recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements should be
> implemented immediately:” with “In our view, the implementation of the
> following three recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements is
> very important:”?
> 
> Assuming that the proposed resolution to McTim's comment on paragraph 3
> is accepted, the beginning of section A would then read as follows:
> 
>  A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements
> 
>  There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency vis a vis the
>  fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public policy
>  questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution of.
> 
>  In our view, the implementation of the following three
>  recommendations of the WG on IGF Improvements is very important:
> 
>  (three quotes from the WG’s report
>  http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf
>  follow)
> 
> Is that acceptable?
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> Am Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:00:16 -0500
> schrieb Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think it would be fine for the caucus to give its support to any of
>> the recommendations of the WG-IGF.    And I have no gripe with
>> supporting these three recommendations.
>> 
>> I am just against any presumption that this should be automatic
>> because the CSTD & GA ordered it.
>> 
>> I also want to make sure that the IGC statement is not used in any
>> manner to discredit the MAG and it full potential to act as advisors
>> to the UNSG on any aspect of the IGF.  Though I do want to require
>> them to always hold consultations  (online or face to face)before
>> deciding. As someone who is not on the MAG, I want to strengthen its
>> position as interpreters of the will of the IGF and the advisors to
>> the UNSG or his representatives.  I do not want to relgate them to
>> the role of a program committee.  The CSTD is not our oversight
>> organization.
>> 
>> 
>> So for me it is a matter of neither stomping our foot with
>> 'impatience' nor of making statement about immediate implementation,
>> but about saying that we think these are good recommendations that we
>> beleive the MAG should do something about.
>> 
>> It is more a matter of tone, of not surrendering the independence of
>> the IGF and of not undercutting the MAG in its role as the one that
>> advises the UNSG and that works with the Secretariat to effect any
>> agreed upon changes after consultation with the stakeholders.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:34, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> 
>>> I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to get consensus on
>>> how binding / definitive the recommendations of WG on IGF
>>> improvements should be taken to be.
>>> 
>>> I therefore propose that we develop a formulation that avoids
>>> taking a position on that specific aspect, while communicating
>>> eagerness to see those three specific recommendations implemented
>>> that we are citing.
>>> 
>>> Is that an acceptable path forward for the Caucus statement?
>>> 
>>> (Individual Caucus members would of course, independent of the
>>> Caucus statement, be free make a written contribution of their own
>>> on whether an additional consultative process is appropriate before
>>> the recommendations of WG on IGF improvements are implemented.)
>>> 
>>> 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 nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 16:25:33 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:25:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution -> overall theme
In-Reply-To: <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130213222533.159b7b34@quill.bollow.ch>

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> >> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
> >> =============================
> >> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be:
> >> “Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in Internet
> >> governance”."
>
> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
> 
> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"

How about giving both suggestions:

"A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation
of all stakeholders in Internet governance” or “Human rights and their
implications for Internet governance”

?

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 16:46:43 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:46:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution -> overall theme
In-Reply-To: <20130213222533.159b7b34@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <20130213222533.159b7b34@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <855AB6B4-6465-43CA-B8FF-CFC83E087165@acm.org>


On 13 Feb 2013, at 16:25, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>>>> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>>>> =============================
>>>> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be:
>>>> “Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in Internet
>>>> governance”."
>> 
>> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
>> 
>> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
> 
> How about giving both suggestions:
> 
> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation
> of all stakeholders in Internet governance” or “Human rights and their
> implications for Internet governance”

Hight

Well it would probably be "two possible overall themes"

But as I said, meaningful still seem meaningless to me.  Or rather it could mean any number of different things to different people.  Or even to the same person.

Do we mean full participation?
Do we mean participation according to our appropriate roles and responsibilities?
Do we mean equal participation?
Do we mean satisfying participation?
Do we mean effective participation?

What exactly do we want to talk about here.  
What is the scope of the conversation?  IETF, ITU, ICANN, ETSI, APNIC, ARIN ...

Or are we talking about within the IGF itself?  Are we exploring the problematic imbalance in the MAG where governments get half the seats?

That is why I argue for workshops that explore all of these organizations modalities, and more, and see what comes of that discussion.  I think that first we need to understand that these days everyone claims to be multistakeholder, so the IGF has an opportunity to weight in and ask, exactly what do you mean by that and can you show us how this works?  I do not see it as a general theme.

But in any case, I don't think the topic is specific enough, and the word meaningful is problematic.

I am sure that the ITU could argue that as a remote participant in the IEG meeting on WTPF I was able to participate meaningfully.  and from some perspective I might even be forced to agree with them especially in comparison to previous participation level.  But is that what we want to deal with?

avri

APNIC - Asia Pacific Network Information Centre
ARIN - American Registry for Internet Numbers
ETSI - European Telecommunications Standards Institute
ICANN - Interent corporations for Assigned Names and Numbers
IEG - Informal Experts Group
IETF - Internet Engineering Task Force
IGF - Interent Governance Forum
ITU - International Telecommunications Union
WTPF - World Telecommunications Policy Forum

> 
> ?
> 
> 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 13 16:48:02 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:48:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: : [governance] caucus contribution -> overall theme
Message-ID: <1360792082.13511.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>


Can we propose some other Theme, like "Internet Governance for Everyone" and in Sub Theme we can propose
- "Stakeholders Meaningful participation",
- "Result oriented dialogues"
- "Implementation implications of Human Rights",
- "Internet for Kids" 

Thanks

Imran

------------------------------
On Thu 14 Feb, 2013 2:25 AM PKT Norbert Bollow wrote:

>Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> > Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>> > =============================
>> > Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be:
>> > “Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in Internet
>> > governance”."
>>
>> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
>> 
>> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
>
>How about giving both suggestions:
>
>"A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation
>of all stakeholders in Internet governance” or “Human rights and their
>implications for Internet governance”
>
>?
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>


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

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

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

From jfcallo at ciencitec.com  Wed Feb 13 16:59:10 2013
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:59:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] Intereses
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLtsH58LzpZ7q9Pn7FxfMqsE=d4XdkvWCc7Pq3tdRmznag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYrBw40fnPx-SyVtFiF07Cz+=8yL2PDHPCc+hDa=xs1tqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
 <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
 <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
 <CAAYFVLtsH58LzpZ7q9Pn7FxfMqsE=d4XdkvWCc7Pq3tdRmznag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130213165910.10982fyg0iqlcq7i@www.ciencitec.com>

Don José Felix:
Importante planteamiento que hace. Seria interesante que Avri Doria,  
escriba tambien en español, solo asi tendremos una vision democratica  
de cualquier accion en bien general de Internet y en particular de los  
usuarios.
Gracias

José F. Callo Romero
CEO ciencitec.com


José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com> escribió:

> Mejor dicho, la tardanza en escoger a los cinco miembros era para que no se
> tenga el tiempo suficiente para debatir nuevas propuestas. Y seguir con lo
> mismo ¿Hasta cuando?
>
> Y que casualidad que usted Avri Doria tiene el paquete salvador, y el resto
> tenga que votar como carneros por lo que Ud. a propuesto, que no es mas que
> lo mismo de siempre.
>
> Se nota que los conservadores no quieren la modernización ¿Hay algo?
>
> Me imagino que el elegido seguirá la política del avestruz.
>
> Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos poner a la
> tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos emergentes y
> simplemente y sutilmente se los negamos, ¿intereses creados?
>
> Por favor denme una explicación razonable y no de políticas conservadoras
> establecidas
>
>
>
> *Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
> *                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
>
>
> 2013/2/13 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:59, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>
>> > [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
>> >
>> > As the deadline for raising issues has now passed, no new issues will
>> > be added to the below list of issues under consideration unless I have
>> > made a mistake and overlooked an issue that was actually raised before
>> > the deadline.
>> >
>> > Here is my current list of issues that we need to resolve (the one
>> > that has been closed already by the last update remove already)...
>> >
>> > In the following, quotation indicates the parts of the issues list that
>> > have remained unchanged since the last update.
>> >
>> > Greetings,
>> > Norbert
>> >
>> >> The decision process is going to be:
>> >> - Where no specific textual change suggestion is made, the current
>> >> text of our statement remains unchanged in that regard.
>> >> - If for any of the proposed resolutions given below, no-one objects,
>> >>  the text of our statement is adjusted accordingly.
>> >> - If for one of the proposed resolutions given below, someone objects
>> >>  to the proposed resolution, and also no other resolution is
>> >>  proposed in a timely manner, while no-one explicitly objects to the
>> >>  current draft text, the current text of our statement remains
>> >>  unchanged in that regard.
>> >> - If for any particular point, we end up having objections to all
>> >>  resolutions that have been put forward by the deadline for proposing
>> >>  improved resolutions, and also an objection to the current draft
>> >> text regarding that point, as a last resort all text regard that point
>> >>  will be deleted from the statement. (If we had enough time, we could
>> >>  try to do a determination of rough consensus as allowed by the
>> >>  charter, but I think it's pretty clear that there isn't going to be
>> >>  enough time to do that in a reasonable manner.)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> All references are to http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/107
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 1
>> >> ===========
>> >> Current text: "Here are the concerns and suggestions of the Civil
>> >> Society Internet Governance Caucus on IGF themes and format and the
>> >> way forward:"
>> >>
>> >> Avri has commented: "I suggest that a paragragh be added about how
>> >> these comments were developed in a bottom-up manner. i.e a few words
>> >> on the process that was followed."
>> >>
>> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> >> specific proposal is made, by default no such additional paragraph
>> >> will be added.
>> >>
>>
>> Norbert, you have frequently writen about your process.  extract a few of
>> your sentence.  something like:
>>
>> Co-cos put out a call, we have a common doc that allowed for comments by
>> the paragraph, we had list discussions. we went  through a repeat process
>> of calling for consensus, we had  last call for members only, the co-cos
>> called consensus, we were done.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 2
>> >> ===========
>> >> Current text: "A. Implementation of the recommendations of the WG on
>> >> IGF Improvements"
>> >>
>> >> Avri has commented: "I think it is appropriate to talk about
>> >> addressing, but I do not think that the CSTD WG improvements should be
>> >> seen as commands. they are something that should be reviewed by the
>> >> IGF particiipants and those that get bottom-up support should be
>> >> implemented."
>> >
>> > Parminder replied: "“Review by IGF’ looks a good thing to speak of, but
>> > how doe sthis review happen — by MAG appointed panelists with their
>> > ‘recs’ going back to MAG to ‘consider’….. We are into very sticky
>> > territory here…. It is dangerous to seek subversion of all processes –
>> > CSTD WG was a multistakeholder process that adopted recs with
>> > consensus. I dont understand why and how does now MAG want to become
>> > the bigeest authourity in gobal IG of course in the name of the
>> > undefinable mass called the IGF, and purporting to be speaking for it."
>>
>> As I recommended.  MAG needs to recommend implementation of any of these
>> so-called multistakeholder recommendations.  To do this they first subject
>> it to multistakeholder review by calling for open comment byt the IGF body
>> politic.
>>
>> >
>> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> >> the draft text.
>>
>> Insert:
>>
>> Before MAG  implements of any of the CSTD WG recommendations, we recommend
>> that they first subject it to multistakeholder review by calling for open
>> comment by the IGF body politic.
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 3
>> >> ===========
>> >> Current text: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> >> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> >> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> >> of. For too long it has remained caught in matters of process and
>> >> form. It is time to do what it really needed to do."
>> >>
>> >> McTim has commented: "This seems to be overly editorial to me. What
>> >> does it “really need to do”?"
>> >>
>> >> Proposed resolution: Delete the two final sentences of the paragraph,
>> >> resulting in: "There has been a sense of impatience and great urgency
>> >> vis a vis the fact that IGF has really not addressed key global public
>> >> policy questions that it was created to contribute towards resolution
>> >> of."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 4
>> >> ===========
>> >> Current text: "Especially the following recommendations of the WG on
>> >> IGF Improvements should be implemented immediately:"
>> >>
>> >> Avri has commented: "I do not beleive the recommendations from the WG
>> >> on IGF should be implemented unless the bottom-up process of IGF
>> >> itself aproves the implementation of these. the MAG should review
>> >> them and should put out a call for consultations. After that
>> >> consultation, then the MAG should decide on what to implement and
>> >> what not to implement."
>> >>
>> >> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "I'm very uncomfortable
>> >> about thereby effectively giving the MAG authority to decide which of
>> >> the recommendations of the CSTD WG should be implemented."
>> >
>> > Parminder replied: "THis change suggested by Avri is completely
>> > unacceptable… And it is a very very substantive point which in any case
>> > should first be discussed in the big group…. Who gives the right to the
>> > MAG to self appoint itself in a role of power, when no one gave it that
>> > power… This is something I beleive a group within the MAG is trying to
>> > do at present, and IGC’s statement cannot become an instrument to back
>> > this highly problematic move."
>> >
>> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> >> the draft text.
>> >>
>>
>> see the response above.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 10
>> >> ============
>> >> Current text: "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>> >> propose that the following policy question be taken up at the 2013
>> >> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>> >> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>> >> and institutions involved in this process?”
>> >>
>> >> Avri has commented: "Why do we want to make an ill defined notion with
>> >> myriad different propaganda streams a major issue for the IGF. I do
>> >> not see it as a worthwhile direction for the IGF to take. We do not
>> >> agree on what NN means, how can it be a key architectural principle,
>> >> more that it already is?"
>> >
>> > Parminder replied to Avri's comment: "Avri seem to agee that NN is a
>> > key architectural principle – that much agreement is enough. If we do
>> > not agree on what it means that is what we will like to thrash out at
>> > the IGF…. Outside narrow IG CS community obsessed with process issues,
>> > after FoE, NN is almost universally seen as ‘the’ key IG issue. (Wasnt
>> > ENTO proposal at WCIT, the main pre WCIT rallying point, also abut NN)"
>>
>> I am fine with saying that we think the best effort network for all is the
>> best idea..
>>
>> >
>> >> Norbert Bollow has replied to Avri's comment: "In my mind it is clear
>> >> enough what "net neutrality" means / should be understood to mean.
>>
>> It is clear in everyones mind.  Just the images are completely different.
>>
>>
>> >> Some countries have passed NN legislation, in other countries such
>> >> legislation is proposed / under consideration. This would make this in
>> >> my eyes a key issue to be discussed at the IGF, and if indeed it is
>> >> not clear enough what NN means, it should be made a major objective to
>> >> develop a shared understanding."
>> >>
>> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> >> the draft text.
>> >>
>>
>> "In the spirit of the above-cited recommendations, we
>> propose that the following policy question
>>
>> be included as a workshop topic  for
>>
>> 2013
>> IGF: “How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural
>> principle of the global Internet, and what shall be the mechanisms
>> and institutions involved in this process?”
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
>> >> =============================
>> >> Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
>> >> participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance”."
>> >>
>> >> Avri has commented: "what does Meaningful mean? I do not see this as a
>> >> significant topic for the IGF. It is an introspective organizational
>> >> topic not one that affect the Interent directly. Why have we given up
>> >> on Human Rights as a general theme?"
>> >
>> > Parminder replied: "I will like to stick with the proposed topic about
>> > ‘meaningful participation of all stkaeholders in IG’… Cant understand
>> > when almost every global IG document seem to focus on
>> > multistakeholerism, why the need to promote it as well as understand
>> > its full implications should not be the overall theme for a year."
>> >
>> >> Proposed resolution: None yet. Please propose specific text. If no
>> >> specific proposal is made, by default no change will be made to
>> >> the draft text.
>>
>> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
>>
>> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>> to be continued...
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>




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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 13 17:36:50 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:36:50 +0100
Subject: : [governance] caucus contribution -> overall theme
In-Reply-To: <1360792082.13511.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1360792082.13511.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20130213233650.31527fdd@quill.bollow.ch>

Hmm... I'd say that “Human rights and their implications for Internet
governance” could work as an overall theme that could be supplemented
by perhaps three subthemes.

How about:

"For the 2013 IGF we suggest “Human rights and their implications for
Internet governance” as main theme, with “Effective participation
of all stakeholders in Internet governance”, “Internet Rights and
Principles” and “Internet for Kids” as overall subthemes."

?

Greetings,
Norbert



Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Can we propose some other Theme, like "Internet Governance for
> Everyone" and in Sub Theme we can propose
> - "Stakeholders Meaningful participation",
> - "Result oriented dialogues"
> - "Implementation implications of Human Rights",
> - "Internet for Kids" 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Imran
> 
> ------------------------------
> On Thu 14 Feb, 2013 2:25 AM PKT Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> >Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> >> > Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
> >> > =============================
> >> > Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be:
> >> > “Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in Internet
> >> > governance”."
> >>
> >> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
> >> 
> >> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
> >
> >How about giving both suggestions:
> >
> >"A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
> >participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance” or “Human
> >rights and their implications for Internet governance”
> >
> >?
> >
> >Greetings,
> >Norbert
> >
> 
> 


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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 18:04:59 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:04:59 -0500
Subject: : [governance] caucus contribution -> overall theme
In-Reply-To: <20130213233650.31527fdd@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <1360792082.13511.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130213233650.31527fdd@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <40D8D344-0ADE-4CED-AF29-2C87F7A63150@acm.org>


On 13 Feb 2013, at 17:36, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> 
> "For the 2013 IGF we suggest “Human rights and their implications for
> Internet governance” as main theme, with “Effective participation
> of all stakeholders in Internet governance”, “Internet Rights and
> Principles” and “Internet for Kids” as overall subthemes."

while not exactly understanding what Internet for Kids is, I think the construction works well.

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  Wed Feb 13 19:29:21 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:59:21 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> possible replacement
 terms for NN?
In-Reply-To: <20130213220339.77c50c0c@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com> <20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch> <37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org> <20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch> <757A65E9-5533-43B4-A5C8-9C09DA151FE7@acm.org> <20130213220126.5ccb1db0@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213220339.77c50c0c@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <F26D09D1-5FE5-4B01-B7C4-E20A935569DE@hserus.net>

If we do get into the net neutrality debate it would be wise to understand the facts and architecture about the debate first. The debate around it so far is buzzword laden and ideological, not just here but in popular tech media like ars technica

--srs (iPad)

On 14-Feb-2013, at 2:33, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Am Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:01:26 +0100
> schrieb Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:
> 
>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 13 Feb 2013, at 14:20, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Would the following be acceptable as a replacement?
>>>> 
>>>> “How to maintain the principle (sometimes referred to as ‘net
>>>> neutrality’) that the price which an ISPs charges their customer
>>>> for exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on
>>>> the content of the data packets, nor on who specifically is the
>>>> remote party? What shall be the mechanisms and institutions
>>>> involved in this process?”
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is close, though I think it needs some wordsmithing.  A
>>> suggestion:
>>> 
>>> “
>>> How to maintain the principle 
>>> 
>>> (referred to by some as ‘net neutrality’) 
>>> 
>>> that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
>>> exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
>>> content of the data packets, nor shall it depend on source or
>>> destination party?
>>> 
>>> How shall the  key architectural principle of best effort service
>>> for all user traffic in the global Internet be preserved?
>>> ”
>> 
>> Hmm a customer who exchanges packets will almost invariably pay less
> 
> Sorry, that should read "... a customer who exchanges MANY packets..."
> 
>> per packet than one who exchanges only a few, and I don't think that
>> that should be considered a violation of the principle in the first
>> of the questions.
>> 
>> So how about the following? (the only change is to replace "source or
>> destination party" with "the party with whom the packets are
>> exchanged") 
>> 
>> “
>> How to maintain the principle 
>> 
>> (referred to by some as ‘net neutrality’) 
>> 
>> that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
>> exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
>> content of the data packets, nor shall it depend on the party with
>> whom the packets are exchanged?
>> 
>> How shall the key architectural principle of best effort service for
>> all user traffic in the global Internet be preserved?
>> ”
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Feb 13 19:33:10 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:33:10 +0800
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C
 8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org>

I disagree with all of the changes that Avri is asking for, and at a minimum I would ask that rather than deleting paragraphs from the text, we just note that there is not complete agreement on them.

If this can't be done, then I will sign on to an alternative civil society statement that reinstates those deleted paragraphs as they were, and I will ask who else is willing to do so.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

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

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/0257c68d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Feb 13 19:42:51 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:42:51 +1200
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
	<CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCfAvw1ry2eUcMfs5GA5xYOY+yDrg1FmpvLBv9On_E5Og@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Jeremy. We should retain the paragraphs and note that there
was no complete agreement. This my opinion as a member and not as
co-coordinator.

Kind Regards,

Sala

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> I disagree with all of the changes that Avri is asking for, and at a
> minimum I would ask that rather than deleting paragraphs from the text, we
> just note that there is not complete agreement on them.
>
> If this can't be done, then I will sign on to an alternative civil society
> statement that reinstates those deleted paragraphs as they were, and I will
> ask who else is willing to do so.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/f8f7df0a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Feb 13 20:22:44 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:22:44 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: Vienna University of Economics and Business Joins
 Economics Research Centers Papers
In-Reply-To: <20976248.1360755155386.JavaMail.itxuser@chronos>
References: <20976248.1360755155386.JavaMail.itxuser@chronos>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1B67F2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Not to distract from Internet governance issues...

But if anyone cares to read further on international taxation issues generally as were being discussed some weeks back...fyi

Includes page turners such as:

Cross-Border Hybrid Finance and Tax Planning: Does International Tax Coordination Work?<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1635158>
________________________________
From: Economics Research Network [ERN at ssrn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:32 AM
To: Lee W McKnight
Subject: Vienna University of Economics and Business Joins Economics Research Centers Papers


[http://papers.ssrn.com/Organizations/images/ihp_ssrnlogo.png]<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://www.ssrn.com>         [http://hq.ssrn.com/Header/newHeader/image/socialnew.gif]

We are pleased to announce WU Vienna University of Economics and Business has started an International Taxation Research Paper Series. Due to the comprehensive nature of the research, the series will be included in Economics Research Centers Papers within the Economics Research Network (ERN), Accounting Research Centers Papers within the Accounting Research Network (ARN), and in Law Research Centers Papers within the Legal Scholarship Network (LSN).

WU INTERNATIONAL TAXATION RESEARCH PAPER SERIES
View Abstracts: http://www.ssrn.com/link/WU-Intl-Taxation-RES.html<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://www.ssrn.com/link/WU-Intl-Taxation-RES.html>
Subscribe: http://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=WU-Intl-Taxation-RES<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=WU-Intl-Taxation-RES>

The WU International Taxation Research Paper Series includes work in progress, published papers, and abstracts from a monodisciplinary, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary perspective. The disciplines involved include those with a strong connection to international business taxation, in particular accounting, law, public finance, and psychology, but also history, management, or political science. The Research Paper Series is supported by a strong team of junior and senior researchers, mostly from WU Vienna University of Business and Economics and from its Doctoral Program in International Business Taxation<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://www.wu.ac.at/dibt/about>.

The Research Paper Series is edited by Eva Eberhartinger, Michael Lang and Martin Zagler (Vienna University of Economics), Erich Kirchler (University of Vienna), and Rupert Sausgruber (University of Innsbruck).


HOW TO SUBSCRIBE
You can subscribe to the eJournal at no cost, by clicking on the "subscribe" link listed above.

You can change your eJournal subscriptions by logging into SSRN User HQ<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://hq.ssrn.com>. If you have any problems, please contact us for assistance by email: Support at SSRN.com<mailto:Support at SSRN.com> or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

SSRN's eLIBRARY
SSRN's searchable electronic library contains abstracts, full bibliographic data, and author contact information for more than 466,600 papers, more than 217,200 authors, and full text for more than 379,100 papers. The eLibrary can be accessed at http://papers.ssrn.com<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://papers.ssrn.com>.

SSRN supports open access by allowing authors to upload papers to the eLibrary for free through the SSRN User HeadQuarters at http://hq.ssrn.com<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://hq.ssrn.com>, and by providing free downloading of those papers.

Downloads from the SSRN eLibrary in the past 12 months total more than 11 million, with more than 62.3 million downloads since inception.

SSRN's PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY
Searching on an individual's name in the author field on our search page at http://ssrn.com/search<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://ssrn.com/search> provides the best single professional directory of scholars in the social sciences and humanities. Complete contact information for authors, including email, postal, telephone, and fax information, is available there.

SSRN's MISSION
SSRN's objective is to provide rapid, worldwide distribution of research to authors and their readers and to facilitate communication among them at the lowest possible cost. In pursuit of this objective, we allow authors to upload papers without charge. And, any paper an author uploads to SSRN is downloadable for free, worldwide.

ECONOMICS RESEARCH NETWORK
The Economics Research Network (ERN) distributes other eJournals. You can subscribe to these eJournals through the SSRN User HeadQuarters at http://hq.ssrn.com<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://hq.ssrn.com>.

Sincerely,

Michael C. Jensen
Director
Economics Research Network

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is a SSRN general announcement. All subscribers to any SSRN lists automatically receive these announcements and cannot be removed without removing all other subscriptions. Contact unsubscribe at ssrn.com to unsubscribe from all SSRN subscriptions.
________________________________

Search the SSRN eLibrary<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/> | Browse SSRN <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayJournalBrowse.cfm> | Top Papers<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenPapers.cfm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/9183275b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Wed Feb 13 22:08:14 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:08:14 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130130191303.24b6ee31@quill.bollow.ch> <CA+EjHYqa-uGrZHbWi6ugjCfqG3-z8c41Q0geJ8JfweQ2rSMQkQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C
  8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com> <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <840F6A12-4D51-4BA1-9184-2665BF8D26FE@acm.org>


On 13 Feb 2013, at 19:33, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> I disagree with all of the changes that Avri is asking for


all of them?

no discussion, just all of them are bad?


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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Feb 13 22:16:12 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:16:12 +0800
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <840F6A12-4D51-4BA1-9184-2665BF8D26FE@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C 8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com> <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org> <840F6A12-4D51-4BA1-9184-2665BF8D26FE@acm.o
 rg>
Message-ID: <511C56FC.1020604@ciroap.org>

On 14/02/13 11:08, Avri Doria wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 19:33, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> I disagree with all of the changes that Avri is asking for
>
> all of them?
>
> no discussion, just all of them are bad?

I didn't have time to put my reasoning, sorry, I am very stretched at
the moment.  But the deadline is looming, so I had to at least speak up
to show that I wasn't in agreement with the excision of so much existing
text at the last minute.  The part that I disagree with most strongly is
that because the main sessions are not working, we should just cut them
and have more (or the same number of) workshops, rather than overhauling
the format of the main sessions.  That was the most important part of
the statement, IMHO.  I can't agree to anything that would dilute that
message.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

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

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/b4643086/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Feb 13 22:23:52 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:23:52 +0900
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <511C56FC.1020604@ciroap.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
	<CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org>
	<840F6A12-4D51-4BA1-9184-2665BF8D26FE@acm.org>
	<511C56FC.1020604@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAFabd1KLbHOZy-89RrxniwjR4BbNUYegNv2w6HTGudC4mAkBRw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, when this thread began I suggested most of the main sessions
weren't working (CIR is, to the extent that there was a full room,
engagement for 3 hours and people left with a buzz [anecdote]) and
tried to suggest new formats as a way forward.

Whatever :-)

Adam


On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 14/02/13 11:08, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 19:33, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> I disagree with all of the changes that Avri is asking for
>
> all of them?
>
> no discussion, just all of them are bad?
>
>
> I didn't have time to put my reasoning, sorry, I am very stretched at the
> moment.  But the deadline is looming, so I had to at least speak up to show
> that I wasn't in agreement with the excision of so much existing text at the
> last minute.  The part that I disagree with most strongly is that because
> the main sessions are not working, we should just cut them and have more (or
> the same number of) workshops, rather than overhauling the format of the
> main sessions.  That was the most important part of the statement, IMHO.  I
> can't agree to anything that would dilute that message.
>
>
> --
>
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Feb 13 22:31:35 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:31:35 +0800
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAFabd1KLbHOZy-89RrxniwjR4BbNUYegNv2w6HTGudC4mAkBRw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com> <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org> <840F6A12-4D51-4BA1-9184-2665BF8D26FE@acm.org> <511C56FC.1020604@ciroap.org> <CAFabd1KLbHOZy-89RrxniwjR4BbNUYegNv2w6HTGudC4mAkBRw@mail.gmai
 l.com>
Message-ID: <511C5A97.5060407@ciroap.org>

On 14/02/13 11:23, Adam Peake wrote:
> Hi, when this thread began I suggested most of the main sessions
> weren't working (CIR is, to the extent that there was a full room,
> engagement for 3 hours and people left with a buzz [anecdote]) and
> tried to suggest new formats as a way forward.

I didn't disagree with your remarks Adam.  I also have no problem with
the compromises that Norbert has proposed.  I'm even content to have two
main theme suggestions (though I can't understand why meaningful
participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance is not an core
issue for the IGF to consider).

But I do have a very serious problem with Avri's last-minute proposal to
just delete all of the paragraphs that she disagrees with, particularly
at such late notice when this could come as a complete surprise to some
people who are delayed in reading their list mail.  This would be very
rash and unfair.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

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

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/184f4111/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Feb 13 23:39:04 2013
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 04:39:04 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <511A1F79.6070306@cafonso.ca>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
 <511979FB.4090008@cafonso.ca>
 <CACAaNxgMMb9N1mAco+u18CvscCVir6OSAmeQt6fhPM0Xk1f9+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <511A1F79.6070306@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2331E3F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

Carlos, can you explain in more detail what you mean?

> -----Original Message-----
> This move incidentally meant a tremendous blow against the Marco Civil
> process now running in Congress. Both telcos and media (trying to insert
> arbitrary takedown measures without due process in the Marco) are
> bombarding it with intense lobbying in Congress and the help of the
> Ministry of Communications.
> 

[Milton L Mueller] 
Does "this move" mean the governments vote for the ITRs? 
If so, how and why did a vote for the ITRs affect the Marco Civil?

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Thu Feb 14 00:10:07 2013
From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:10:07 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <CAHj_20igmv+qpFhJ75AGMpN=BtUaQbTWh5Z7-tmf+RAmqgv4pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1360818607.3543.YahooMailClassic@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>


To avoid such threats, I strongly suggest we start thinking of policies to restrict subscription to our list. 
Its fundamental to distinguish between credibility and transparency if we have to keep our list professional and authentic.

regards,

___________________________________
  Asama Abel Excel
President and CEO
I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL
 Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge BessenguéDouala Cameroon
 E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net
 T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 /
 T (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net 
 Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission
 Facebook: ivission.internationlTwitter: www.twitter.com/ivission 
 NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission

--- En date de : Mer 13.2.13, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> a écrit :

De: Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com>
Objet: Re: [governance] Request
À: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "Koven Ronald" <kovenronald at aol.com>
Date: Mercredi 13 février 2013, 14h21

here is a case unfortunate and not very accommodating in a list or we have very serious concerns that absorb our attention. We need to track this intrusion and put it out of state harm.



SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

Téléphone mobile:+243998983491
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe


blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net
 






2013/2/13 Koven Ronald <kovenronald at aol.com>







Hello,

 

Sorry to bother you with this but i had a sudden trip out of the country to Belgium. Am here to see my ill cousin she is suffering from Kidney disease and must undergo Kidney transplant to save her life. Kidney transplant is very expensive here, so i want to transfer her back home to have the surgery implemented. I really need to take care of this now but my credit card can't work here. I traveled with little money due to the short time I had to prepare for this trip and never expected things to be the way it is right now. I need a loan of 2,000 Euros from you and I'll reimburse you at my return. I will really appreciate whatever amount you can come up with,if not all get back to me. I'll advise on how to transfer it.



 

Bests, Rony




____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.igcaucus.org

To be removed from the list, visit:

     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing



For all other list information and functions, see:

     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance

To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

     http://www.igcaucus.org/



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





-----La pièce jointe associée suit-----

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/667d0bf6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 14 00:11:35 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:41:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: Vienna University of Economics and Business
 Joins Economics Research Centers Papers
In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1B67F2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20976248.1360755155386.JavaMail.itxuser@chronos> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1B67F2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <511C7207.9070202@itforchange.net>


On he same topic, a more Southern view

*"Siphoning the South’s resources: Transnational corporations, transfer 
pricing and tax evasion*"

Cover story in the Dec 2012 magazine of Third World Network

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/2012/twr268.htm


On Thursday 14 February 2013 06:52 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Not to distract from Internet governance issues...
>
> But if anyone cares to read further on international taxation issues 
> generally as were being discussed some weeks back...fyi
>
> Includes page turners such as:
>
> *Cross-Border Hybrid Finance and Tax Planning: Does International Tax 
> Coordination Work? 
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1635158>*
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Economics Research Network [ERN at ssrn.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:32 AM
> *To:* Lee W McKnight
> *Subject:* Vienna University of Economics and Business Joins Economics 
> Research Centers Papers
>
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://www.ssrn.com> 
> 	
>
>
> We are pleased to announce *WU Vienna University of Economics and 
> Business* has started an International Taxation Research Paper Series. 
> Due to the comprehensive nature of the research, the series will be 
> included in Economics Research Centers Papers within the Economics 
> Research Network (ERN), Accounting Research Centers Papers within the 
> Accounting Research Network (ARN), and in Law Research Centers Papers 
> within the Legal Scholarship Network (LSN).
>
> *WU INTERNATIONAL TAXATION RESEARCH PAPER SERIES*
> *View Abstracts*: http://www.ssrn.com/link/WU-Intl-Taxation-RES.html 
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://www.ssrn.com/link/WU-Intl-Taxation-RES.html>
> *Subscribe*: 
> http://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=WU-Intl-Taxation-RES 
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=WU-Intl-Taxation-RES>
>
>     The WU International Taxation Research Paper Series includes work
>     in progress, published papers, and abstracts from a
>     monodisciplinary, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary
>     perspective. The disciplines involved include those with a strong
>     connection to international business taxation, in particular
>     accounting, law, public finance, and psychology, but also history,
>     management, or political science. The Research Paper Series is
>     supported by a strong team of junior and senior researchers,
>     mostly from WU Vienna University of Business and Economics and
>     from its Doctoral Program in International Business Taxation
>     <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://www.wu.ac.at/dibt/about>.
>
>     The Research Paper Series is edited by Eva Eberhartinger, Michael
>     Lang and Martin Zagler (Vienna University of Economics), Erich
>     Kirchler (University of Vienna), and Rupert Sausgruber (University
>     of Innsbruck). 
>
>
>
> *HOW TO SUBSCRIBE*
> You can subscribe to the eJournal at no cost, by clicking on the 
> "subscribe" link listed above.
>
> You can change your eJournal subscriptions by logging into SSRN User 
> HQ 
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://hq.ssrn.com>. 
> If you have any problems, please contact us for assistance by email: 
> Support at SSRN.com <mailto:Support at SSRN.com> or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp 
> (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the 
> United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 
> 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.
>
> *SSRN's eLIBRARY*
> SSRN's searchable electronic library contains abstracts, full 
> bibliographic data, and author contact information for more than 
> 466,600 papers, more than 217,200 authors, and full text for more than 
> 379,100 papers. The eLibrary can be accessed at http://papers.ssrn.com 
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://papers.ssrn.com>.
>
> SSRN supports open access by allowing authors to upload papers to the 
> eLibrary for free through the SSRN User HeadQuarters at 
> http://hq.ssrn.com 
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://hq.ssrn.com>, 
> and by providing free downloading of those papers.
>
> Downloads from the SSRN eLibrary in the past 12 months total more than 
> 11 million, with more than 62.3 million downloads since inception.
>
> *SSRN's PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY*
> Searching on an individual's name in the author field on our search 
> page at http://ssrn.com/search 
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://ssrn.com/search> 
> provides the best single professional directory of scholars in the 
> social sciences and humanities. Complete contact information for 
> authors, including email, postal, telephone, and fax information, is 
> available there.
>
> *SSRN's MISSION*
> SSRN's objective is to provide rapid, worldwide distribution of 
> research to authors and their readers and to facilitate communication 
> among them at the lowest possible cost. In pursuit of this objective, 
> we allow authors to upload papers without charge. And, any paper an 
> author uploads to SSRN is downloadable for free, worldwide.
>
> *ECONOMICS RESEARCH NETWORK*
> The Economics Research Network (ERN) distributes other eJournals. You 
> can subscribe to these eJournals through the SSRN User HeadQuarters at 
> http://hq.ssrn.com 
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://hq.ssrn.com>. 
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael C. Jensen
> Director
> Economics Research Network
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> /This is a SSRN general announcement. All subscribers to any SSRN 
> lists automatically receive these announcements and cannot be removed 
> without removing all other subscriptions. Contact unsubscribe at ssrn.com 
> to unsubscribe from all SSRN subscriptions./
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Search the SSRN eLibrary 
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/> 
> | Browse SSRN 
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/DisplayJournalBrowse.cfm>| 
> Top Papers 
> <http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=291452&corid=2354&runid=8957&url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenPapers.cfm>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/40bb8747/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Feb 14 01:15:29 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:15:29 -0800
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <1360818607.3543.YahooMailClassic@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <CAHj_20igmv+qpFhJ75AGMpN=BtUaQbTWh5Z7-tmf+RAmqgv4pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1360818607.3543.YahooMailClassic@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20130214061529.GA26104@hserus.net>

International Ivission [14/02/13 05:10 +0000]:
>To avoid such threats, I strongly suggest we start thinking of policies to
>restrict subscription to our list.
>Its fundamental to distinguish between credibility and transparency if we
>have to keep our list professional and authentic.

I am sorry? Rony is a longtime and valued contributor on the list. Do you
intend to keep him out, or keep the scam artist who stole his account out?

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

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

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

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 01:46:07 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:46:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] Tangential - Obama calls for U.S. free trade pact with
 European Union
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-169121128-42750917-2013.02.13-11.38.49--riaz.tayob#gmail.com@listserver.citizen.org>
References: <LYRIS-169121128-42750917-2013.02.13-11.38.49--riaz.tayob#gmail.com@listserver.citizen.org>
Message-ID: <511C882F.9050301@gmail.com>

Snip:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an early proponent of trade talks with the 
EU, applauded the news and urged swift negotiation of a high-standard pact.

The U.S.-EU talks also are expected to tackle new areas, such as setting 
rules to govern the free flow of information across borders. That is an 
increasingly important priority for big U.S. Internet companies like 
Google, Facebook and Amazon but could be hard for EU members France and 
Germany <http://www.reuters.com/places/germany> to accept because of 
privacy concerns.



*Obama calls for U.S. free trade pact with European Union*

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/13/us-obama-speech-trade-idUSBRE91C08620130213

By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON |

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday called for talks on a 
far-reaching free trade agreement with the 27 nations of the European 
Union, throwing his weight behind a deal that would encompass half the 
world's economic output.

"Tonight I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union 
because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports 
millions of good-paying American jobs," Obama said in his annual State 
of the Union speech.

The United States and the EU already have the largest economic 
relationship in the world, and one of the most complicated. A pact would 
unite the United States, the world's largest economy, with four other 
countries in the top ten: Germany, France 
<http://www.reuters.com/places/france>, Britain and Italy.

Faced with slow growth on both sides of the Atlantic and rising 
competition from China <http://www.reuters.com/places/china> and other 
emerging economies, the long-time allies in late 2011 began looking at 
ways to build on their existing relationship.

Last week, EU leaders endorsed trade talks with the United States, 
putting it at the top of a larger agenda that includes negotiations with 
Canada and Japan <http://www.reuters.com/places/japan>.

Two-way goods trade between the United States and the EU now totals more 
than $600 billion annually. Services trade, including sales by 
majority-owned U.S. or EU companies in each other's market, adds about 
$1.2 billion.

U.S. companies have invested around $1.9 trillion in production, 
distribution and other operations in the EU, far more than in China or 
anywhere else in the world. EU companies have invested about $1.6 
trillion in the United States.

Since most tariffs between the United States and the EU are already low, 
reducing regulatory barriers to trade in areas like agriculture and 
chemicals is expected to be the most challenging aspect of the talks.

The EU recently lifted bans on imports of U.S. live swine and beef 
washed with lactic acid to help build confidence that it can address 
U.S. agricultural concerns.

TOUGH NEGOTIATIONS

Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, in a letter to U.S. Trade 
Representative Ron Kirk earlier on Tuesday, welcomed those steps but 
said any agreement must also reduce EU restrictions on genetically 
modified crops, poultry treated with chlorine washes to kill pathogens 
and meat from animals fed the growth stimulant ractopamine.

"A strong, comprehensive trade and investment agreement with the EU has 
the potential to create significant good-paying jobs for Americans," but 
negotiations will be tough, Representative Dave Camp, the Republican 
chairman of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, said 
in a statement welcoming Obama's announcement.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an early proponent of trade talks with the 
EU, applauded the news and urged swift negotiation of a high-standard pact.

The U.S.-EU talks also are expected to tackle new areas, such as setting 
rules to govern the free flow of information across borders. That is an 
increasingly important priority for big U.S. Internet companies like 
Google, Facebook and Amazon but could be hard for EU members France and 
Germany <http://www.reuters.com/places/germany> to accept because of 
privacy concerns.

Meanwhile, the two sides are locked in a long-running battle at the 
World Trade Organization over government support for Boeing, the largest 
the U.S. exporter, and its European rival, Airbus.

That dispute threatens to erupt into a transatlantic trade war in coming 
years unless the two sides can work out a negotiated settlement.

Obama also reaffirmed his commitment to talks with ten countries in the 
Asia-Pacific region on a free trade pact called the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership that negotiators hope to finish this year after more than 
three years of bargaining.

Talks on the U.S.-EU accord are expected to begin by June. A successful 
conclusion to both negotiations would secure Obama's reputation as a 
free trade president after what critics say was a slow start in his 
first term.

Camp and the Senate Finance Committee leaders also said they planned to 
push this year for renewal of "trade promotion authority," a law that 
expired in 2007 that allowed the White House to submit trade deals to 
Congress for a straight yes-or-no vote without any amendments.

That legislation has long been considered essential in persuading other 
countries to put their best offers on the table in trade talks with the 
United States.




-- 
Ecologistas en Acción
c/ Marques de Leganés 12 - 28004 Madrid
Teléfono fijo: +34 91 531 27 39
Teléfono móvil: +34 619 94 90 53
Fax: +34 91 531 26 11
Twitter: @tomkucharz
Skype: ecologistas.en.accion
http://www.facebook.com/tom.kucharz
Correo electrónico: agroecologia at ecologistasenaccion.org 
<mailto:agroecologia at ecologistasenaccion.org>
http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org

Más información:

http://www.stopcorporateimpunity.org/
http://www.s2bnetwork.org
http://www.enlazandoalternativas.org
http://www.aepf.info/
http://www.climate-justice-now.org
http://www.quiendebeaquien.org
http://www.alianzasoberanialimentaria.org
http://alianzaeconomiaverdefuturoimposible.blogspot.com.br/
http://www.auditoria15m.org
http://madrid.tomalaplaza.net/

---

You are currently subscribed to wto-intl as: riaz.tayob at gmail.com 
<mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com>.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=169121128.7ffe8dbd63e26846c3142e5e369e5f9b&n=T&l=wto-intl&o=42750917

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-42750917-169121128.7ffe8dbd63e26846c3142e5e369e5f9b at listserver.citizen.org 
<mailto:leave-42750917-169121128.7ffe8dbd63e26846c3142e5e369e5f9b at listserver.citizen.org>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/1541c38a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 02:02:42 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:02:42 +1200
Subject: [governance] Tangential - Obama calls for U.S. free trade pact
 with European Union
In-Reply-To: <511C882F.9050301@gmail.com>
References: <LYRIS-169121128-42750917-2013.02.13-11.38.49--riaz.tayob#gmail.com@listserver.citizen.org> <511C882F.9050301@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9A23B10F-E76B-4C93-96C5-D5B291E53C17@gmail.com>

Thanks Riaz, this is fascinating.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 14, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

> Snip:
> 
> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an early proponent of trade talks with the EU, applauded the news and urged swift negotiation of a high-standard pact.
> 
> The U.S.-EU talks also are expected to tackle new areas, such as setting rules to govern the free flow of information across borders. That is an increasingly important priority for big U.S. Internet companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon but could be hard for EU members France and Germany to accept because of privacy concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama calls for U.S. free trade pact with European Union
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/13/us-obama-speech-trade-idUSBRE91C08620130213
> 
> By Doug Palmer
> 
> WASHINGTON | 
> (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday called for talks on a far-reaching free trade agreement with the 27 nations of the European Union, throwing his weight behind a deal that would encompass half the world's economic output.
> 
> "Tonight I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs," Obama said in his annual State of the Union speech.
> 
> The United States and the EU already have the largest economic relationship in the world, and one of the most complicated. A pact would unite the United States, the world's largest economy, with four other countries in the top ten: Germany, France, Britain and Italy.
> 
> Faced with slow growth on both sides of the Atlantic and rising competition from China and other emerging economies, the long-time allies in late 2011 began looking at ways to build on their existing relationship.
> 
> Last week, EU leaders endorsed trade talks with the United States, putting it at the top of a larger agenda that includes negotiations with Canada and Japan.
> 
> Two-way goods trade between the United States and the EU now totals more than $600 billion annually. Services trade, including sales by majority-owned U.S. or EU companies in each other's market, adds about $1.2 billion.
> 
> U.S. companies have invested around $1.9 trillion in production, distribution and other operations in the EU, far more than in China or anywhere else in the world. EU companies have invested about $1.6 trillion in the United States.
> 
> Since most tariffs between the United States and the EU are already low, reducing regulatory barriers to trade in areas like agriculture and chemicals is expected to be the most challenging aspect of the talks.
> 
> The EU recently lifted bans on imports of U.S. live swine and beef washed with lactic acid to help build confidence that it can address U.S. agricultural concerns.
> 
> TOUGH NEGOTIATIONS
> 
> Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk earlier on Tuesday, welcomed those steps but said any agreement must also reduce EU restrictions on genetically modified crops, poultry treated with chlorine washes to kill pathogens and meat from animals fed the growth stimulant ractopamine.
> 
> "A strong, comprehensive trade and investment agreement with the EU has the potential to create significant good-paying jobs for Americans," but negotiations will be tough, Representative Dave Camp, the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement welcoming Obama's announcement.
> 
> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an early proponent of trade talks with the EU, applauded the news and urged swift negotiation of a high-standard pact.
> 
> The U.S.-EU talks also are expected to tackle new areas, such as setting rules to govern the free flow of information across borders. That is an increasingly important priority for big U.S. Internet companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon but could be hard for EU members France and Germany to accept because of privacy concerns.
> 
> Meanwhile, the two sides are locked in a long-running battle at the World Trade Organization over government support for Boeing, the largest the U.S. exporter, and its European rival, Airbus.
> 
> That dispute threatens to erupt into a transatlantic trade war in coming years unless the two sides can work out a negotiated settlement.
> 
> Obama also reaffirmed his commitment to talks with ten countries in the Asia-Pacific region on a free trade pact called the Trans-Pacific Partnership that negotiators hope to finish this year after more than three years of bargaining.
> 
> Talks on the U.S.-EU accord are expected to begin by June. A successful conclusion to both negotiations would secure Obama's reputation as a free trade president after what critics say was a slow start in his first term.
> 
> Camp and the Senate Finance Committee leaders also said they planned to push this year for renewal of "trade promotion authority," a law that expired in 2007 that allowed the White House to submit trade deals to Congress for a straight yes-or-no vote without any amendments.
> 
> That legislation has long been considered essential in persuading other countries to put their best offers on the table in trade talks with the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ecologistas en Acción
> c/ Marques de Leganés 12 - 28004 Madrid
> Teléfono fijo: +34 91 531 27 39
> Teléfono móvil: +34 619 94 90 53
> Fax: +34 91 531 26 11
> Twitter: @tomkucharz
> Skype: ecologistas.en.accion
> http://www.facebook.com/tom.kucharz
> Correo electrónico: agroecologia at ecologistasenaccion.org
> http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org
> 
> Más información:
> 
> http://www.stopcorporateimpunity.org/
> http://www.s2bnetwork.org
> http://www.enlazandoalternativas.org
> http://www.aepf.info/
> http://www.climate-justice-now.org
> http://www.quiendebeaquien.org
> http://www.alianzasoberanialimentaria.org
> http://alianzaeconomiaverdefuturoimposible.blogspot.com.br/
> http://www.auditoria15m.org
> http://madrid.tomalaplaza.net/
> ---
> 
> You are currently subscribed to wto-intl as: riaz.tayob at gmail.com.
> 
> To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=169121128.7ffe8dbd63e26846c3142e5e369e5f9b&n=T&l=wto-intl&o=42750917
> 
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
> 
> or send a blank email to leave-42750917-169121128.7ffe8dbd63e26846c3142e5e369e5f9b at listserver.citizen.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/ffafa40d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Feb 14 02:44:21 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:44:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> possible replacement
 terms for NN?
In-Reply-To: <20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
 <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
 <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
 <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
 <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch>
 <37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org>
 <20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <6cJ3VPxVXJHRFAA7@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20130213202010.45e1fa92 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 20:20:10 on 
Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>“How to maintain the principle (sometimes referred to as ‘net
>neutrality’) that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
>exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
>content of the data packets, nor on who specifically is the remote
>party? What shall be the mechanisms and institutions involved in this
>process?”

I'm not sure I know of any ISP that charges their consumer customers 
different rates for different types of packet.

What happens is either:

Packets are blocked completely, and no amount of money will make them 
flow; typical examples include email (port 25) traffic to other than the 
ISP's own mail relay [as a Spam prevention technique] and Usenet traffic 
[to discourage swapping pirate movies via Usenet].

or:

The total number of packets (per month, usually) is limited, but you can 
buy more packets if you want; typical examples include Mobile Phone data 
[limited to perhaps 1GB/month] or ADSL/landline [limited to perhaps 
50GB/month], the effect in both cases being to make it *appear* that 
very high volume traffic is more expensive, but they don't count 
streaming-movie packets differently to email packets or web browsing 
packets. If you have to buy more packets, the email and web browsing 
ones cost the same as streaming movie ones.

If the statement above is referring to the *hosting* customers of ISPs 
(eg YouTube versus Wikipedia), it should specifically say so. It's also 
an out of date model because many large hosting companies act as their 
own ISPs, have their own connectivity to IXPs and so on.

If there was going to be some discrimination between types of traffic 
exchanged at IXPs, that would be a matter for the peering agreements 
between the large hosting companies and the onward transit and consumer 
ISPs present at those IXPs. This would be controversial territory - 
proposing to regulate peering agreements.
-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Feb 14 02:56:37 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:56:37 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130201164241.6caaa7d2@quill.bollow.ch> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20130213174442.1b886421 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 17:44:42 on 
Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>The Council of Europe's Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation
>in the Decision-Making Process
><https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM%282009%29148> has what is IMO a
>good characterization of what I'd call “civil society organizations”,
>calling them “NGOs”:
>
>   “In relation to this Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation
>   the term is taken to refer to organised civil society including
>   voluntary groups, non-profit organisations, associations,
>   foundations, charities, as well as geographic or interest-based
>   community and advocacy groups. The core activities of NGOs are
>   focused on values of social justice, human rights, democracy and the
>   rule of law. In these areas the purpose of NGOs is to promote causes
>   and improve the lives of people.”

And that sounds like it includes my recent activity, which has been 
working with interest-based charities, volunteers etc who have a focus 
on one particular aspect of social justice, human rights and the rule of 
law: Prevention of violence against women - in particular those who are 
tracked and harassed via their Internet footprint (commonly on social 
networking sites).

However, I'm also aware that in order to achieve the goal of protecting 
women, some people might characterise the techniques involved as forms 
of selective censorship and attempts to strip away anonymity (in both 
cases with respect to their attackers).

So not every part of Civil Society necessarily has the same view on core 
issues such as these.
-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb 14 04:29:25 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:29:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> possible replacement
 terms for NN?
In-Reply-To: <6cJ3VPxVXJHRFAA7@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
	<3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
	<CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch>
	<37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org>
	<20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch>
	<6cJ3VPxVXJHRFAA7@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <20130214102925.1e34a379@quill.bollow.ch>

Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <20130213202010.45e1fa92 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 20:20:10 on 
> Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
> >“How to maintain the principle (sometimes referred to as ‘net
> >neutrality’) that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
> >exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
> >content of the data packets, nor on who specifically is the remote
> >party? What shall be the mechanisms and institutions involved in this
> >process?”
> 
> I'm not sure I know of any ISP that charges their consumer customers 
> different rates for different types of packet.

That language is trying to somehow address the type of concern that
was expressed in media coverage about the Dutch "net neutrality law"
by means of the following words:

  "Under the new law, mobile internet providers like KPN won't be able
  to charge for access to particular services like Skype or throttle
  traffic through them — both techniques that the company was intent on
  using to manage its mobile traffic."

In my view, the concern is expressed well enough in the proposed text
for our present purpose, even if it is true that there is an aspect
which is not covered, namely potentially intentionally throtteling (or
e.g. introducing jitter) specifically to stop people from using specific
services that happen to compete with other offerings of the ISP.

Is someone here of the opinion that it is important to continue
wordsmithing 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Feb 14 04:45:22 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 09:45:22 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: caucus contribution -> possible replacement
 terms for NN?
In-Reply-To: <20130214102925.1e34a379@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
 <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
 <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
 <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
 <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213191801.50341912@quill.bollow.ch>
 <37B1D50A-1AC7-4C1E-B354-0C5717836B9D@acm.org>
 <20130213202010.45e1fa92@quill.bollow.ch>
 <6cJ3VPxVXJHRFAA7@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <20130214102925.1e34a379@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <MigaKpDyILHRFAEn@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <20130214102925.1e34a379 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 10:29:25 on 
Thu, 14 Feb 2013, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>> >“How to maintain the principle (sometimes referred to as ‘net
>> >neutrality’) that the price which an ISPs charges their customer for
>> >exchanging data packets via the Internet shall not depend on the
>> >content of the data packets, nor on who specifically is the remote
>> >party? What shall be the mechanisms and institutions involved in this
>> >process?”
>>
>> I'm not sure I know of any ISP that charges their consumer customers
>> different rates for different types of packet.
>
>That language is trying to somehow address the type of concern that
>was expressed in media coverage about the Dutch "net neutrality law"
>by means of the following words:
>
>  "Under the new law, mobile internet providers like KPN won't be able
>  to charge for access to particular services like Skype or throttle
>  traffic through them — both techniques that the company was intent on
>  using to manage its mobile traffic."
>
>In my view, the concern is expressed well enough in the proposed text
>for our present purpose, even if it is true that there is an aspect
>which is not covered, namely potentially intentionally throtteling (or
>e.g. introducing jitter) specifically to stop people from using specific
>services that happen to compete with other offerings of the ISP.

That example clarifies the situation, in other words KPN might have 
charged a fee to "unblock" Skype. Of course, the quote above is still 
somewhat ambiguous, because I doubt if access to other services (other 
than Skype) is free of charge, so all of them are in fact being 
delivered for a fee.

I've seen some other mobile phone companies doing the exact reverse, 
with traffic to Skype being "truly free of charge" and other traffic 
charged per byte.

But I do wonder if Skype in particular (and VoIP in general) is a bit of 
a special case due to the direct competition with mobile voice. If 
there's no similar threat to 'pure data' traffic[1], perhaps the Skype 
issue could be dealt with via an alternative statement to do with 
blocking (and/or outlawing) of VoIP in general on some networks and in 
some countries.

But perhaps that's a thought for another day, because we approach this 
deadline too rapidly.

[1] A hypothetical fee to unblock YouTube or Wikipedia.
-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb 14 04:55:11 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:55:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
	<3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C
 8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com>
	<CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20130214105511.45b2852d@quill.bollow.ch>

Am Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:33:10 +0800
schrieb Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:

> I disagree with all of the changes that Avri is asking for, and at a
> minimum I would ask that rather than deleting paragraphs from the
> text, we just note that there is not complete agreement on them.

Avri, Jeremy: Would prefacing the concerned paragraphs with "Some of us
suggest that..." be acceptable from your perspectives?

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Feb 14 04:58:41 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:58:41 +0800
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130214105511.45b2852d@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <3E68CC0D-5E57-49D0-82C 8-4128F9FF9577@ella.com> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com> <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org> <20130214105511.45b2852d@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <511CB551.1010406@ciroap.org>

On 14/02/13 17:55, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Avri, Jeremy: Would prefacing the concerned paragraphs with "Some of us
> suggest that..." be acceptable from your perspectives?

Yes.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

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

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/0c5a1aa3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb 14 06:06:46 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:06:46 +0100
Subject: : [governance] caucus contribution -> PLEASE REVIEW
In-Reply-To: <20130213233650.31527fdd@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <1360792082.13511.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<20130213233650.31527fdd@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130214120646.71c9217e@quill.bollow.ch>

Dear all

I'm not able right now to double-check everything (I'll do that later),
but I think that the following reflects the current state of the
consensus process discussions, plus what I believe to be purely
editorial fixes in paragraphs 25 and 34. 

http://igcaucus.org/working-docs/2013-02-14.pdf
http://igcaucus.org/working-docs/2013-02-14.odt
http://igcaucus.org/working-docs/2013-02-14.doc

What, if anything :-) requires further wordsmithing in order to have
an acceptable caucus statement?

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  Thu Feb 14 08:42:19 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:42:19 +0100
Subject: : [governance] caucus contribution -> LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES
In-Reply-To: <20130214120646.71c9217e@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <1360792082.13511.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<20130213233650.31527fdd@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130214120646.71c9217e@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130214144219.170b8128@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Dear all

Here's a summary of the current status in regard to the planned caucus
contribution.

We're getting close to the end of the consensus process phase: The
deadlines for raising issues and for proposing resolutions have passed.
However, if absolutely necessary we're able to extend the deadline for
proposing resolutions for specific issues that really need a longer
consensus process. That would mean that the corresponding paragraphs of
the statement could not be included when the main part of the
statement is sent to the IGF secretariat, but those paragraphs would
(after whatever further wordsmithing is considered necessary) be sent
to the secretariat on Monday morning in an addendum.

I'm giving a summary of the resolutions that have been proposed below.

As announced earlier, the deadline for objecting to any of these
proposed resolutions is 22.00 UTC TODAY Thursday February 14.

A copy of the draft statement (plus paragraph numbers for reference
during these final stages of the consensus process) which highlighted
changes is available (the same content in several formats) at

http://igcaucus.org/working-docs/2013-02-14.pdf
http://igcaucus.org/working-docs/2013-02-14.odt
http://igcaucus.org/working-docs/2013-02-14.doc

Greetings,
Norbert



SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

Paragraph 1
===========
* New footnote about the process by which the statement is developed,
  resolving a request by Avri.

Paragraph 3
===========
* Deletion of "overly editorializing" text pointed out by McTim.

Paragraph 4
===========
* Reworded resolving an objection by Avri.

Paragraph 10
============
* Reworded resolving the objection by Avri and McTim that the term "net
  neutrality" is not sufficiently well-defined.

Paragraph 12
============
* Wording change "Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in IG" to
  "Effective participation of all stakeholders in IG" to resolve an
  objection by Avri.
* Reworded and substantively expanded, resolving Avri's request for
  *Human rights" as overall theme, and Imran's request to incorporate
  the "Internet for Kids" theme suggestion, as well as Parminder's
  suggestion from a while back to incorporate the "Internet Rights and
  Principles" theme suggestion, while keeping "Effective participation
  of all stakeholders in IG" as a "sub-theme".

Paragraph 14
============
* Deleted the point about reduction of the number of workshops,
  resolving an objection by Avri. [Note: The substantive point however
  survives with the "some of us suggest" qualification in paragraph 26.]
* Deleted the point about reduction of the number of main sessions,
  resolving an objection by Parminder.
* Added the text of Nick's comment to avoid "reruns" of sessions.

Paragraph 15
============
* Added the "Some of us suggest" qualification, resolving an objection
  by Avri.

Paragraph 16
============
* Added the "Some of us suggest" qualification, resolving an objection
  by Avri.

Paragraph 17
============
* Added the "Some of us suggest" qualification, resolving an objection
  by Avri.

Paragraph 17bis
===============
* Added text proposed by Avri.

Paragraph 19
============
* Added the "Some of us suggest" qualification, resolving an objection
  by Avri.

Paragraph 19bis
===============
* Added text proposed by Avri.

Paragraph 21
============
* Deleted the explicit endorsement for the "multistakeholder framework
  of commitments", resolving an objection by Parminder.

Paragraph 22
============
* Multiple additions, resolving suggestions by Robert Guerra, Nick and
  Baudouin.

Paragraph 26
============
* Added the "Some of us suggest" qualification, resolving an objection
  by Avri.

Paragraph 28
============
* Complete change of the text, suggested by Avri.

Paragraph 29
============
* Clarified that not redefinition of "Internet governance" is what we
  ask for, but actual use of the existing definition. This resolves an
  objection by Avri.

Paragraph 30
============
* New wording with a similar message, suggested by Avri.

Paragraph 31
============
* Added clarification text proposed by Avri.

Paragraph 32
============
* New wording with a similar message, suggested by Avri.

Paragraph 35bis
===============
* New text suggested by Adam.

Paragraph 46bis
===============
* New text suggested by Avri.

Paragraph 50
============
* Added text suggested by 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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 11:58:43 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:58:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <511CB551.1010406@ciroap.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
 <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org> <20130214105511.45b2852d@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511CB551.1010406@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLuydu+qtUZSWRVoTGOeOsevpdzNgoES9b_6_nwwkOZkTw@mail.gmail.com>

Tengo razón, cuando digo que la tardanza en escoger a los cinco miembros
era para que no se tenga el tiempo suficiente para debatir nuevas
propuestas. Y seguir con lo mismo.

A ultima hora se quiere hacer cambios sin debatirlos con tiempo, y porque Avri
Doria tiene  que hacerlo a ultima hora y el resto tenga que votar como
carneros por lo que a propuesto,

Se nota que los conservadores no quieren la modernización ¿Hay algo?

Me imagino que el elegido seguirá la política del avestruz.

Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos poner a la
tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos emergentes como
Latinoámerica y simplemente y sutilmente se los negamos.

¿intereses creados?

*¡Por favor denme una explicación razonable y no de políticas conservadoras
establecidas!  *



*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/14 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>

>  On 14/02/13 17:55, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> Avri, Jeremy: Would prefacing the concerned paragraphs with "Some of us
> suggest that..." be acceptable from your perspectives?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/ba11e9ad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 13:31:57 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:31:57 -0800
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLuydu+qtUZSWRVoTGOeOsevpdzNgoES9b_6_nwwkOZkTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com> <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org> <20130214105511.45b2852d@quill.bollow.ch> <511CB551.1010406@ciroap.org> <CAAYFVLuydu+qtUZSWR
 VoTGOeOsevpdzNgoES9b_6
	_nwwkOZkTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <051001ce0ae1$9cec1500$d6c43f00$@gmail.com>

Unfortunately my basic Spanish even in combination with Google translate don't give me enough to understand what our colleague Jose is trying to convey to us…

 

I'm wondering if someone who is sufficiently Spanish/English bi-lingual could do a rough translation that is intelligible in English (unfortunately the Google translate version is not…

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of José Félix Arias Ynche
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:59 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Norbert Bollow; Avri Doria; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com; devonrb at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting

 

Tengo razón, cuando digo que la tardanza en escoger a los cinco miembros era para que no se tenga el tiempo suficiente para debatir nuevas propuestas. Y seguir con lo mismo.

 

A ultima hora se quiere hacer cambios sin debatirlos con tiempo, y porque Avri Doria tiene  que hacerlo a ultima hora y el resto tenga que votar como carneros por lo que a propuesto, 

 

Se nota que los conservadores no quieren la modernización ¿Hay algo?

 

Me imagino que el elegido seguirá la política del avestruz.

 

Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos poner a la tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos emergentes como Latinoámerica y simplemente y sutilmente se los negamos. 

 

¿intereses creados?

 

¡Por favor denme una explicación razonable y no de políticas conservadoras establecidas!  

 

 

 

Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche

                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo

 

2013/2/14 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>

On 14/02/13 17:55, Norbert Bollow wrote:

Avri, Jeremy: Would prefacing the concerned paragraphs with "Some of us
suggest that..." be acceptable from your perspectives?

 

Yes.

 

-- 

Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

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

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print this email unless necessary.


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

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

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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/1cbe7cec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From devonrb at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 13:46:25 2013
From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:46:25 -0500
Subject: : [governance] caucus contribution -> overall theme
In-Reply-To: <1360792082.13511.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1360792082.13511.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAE1T72RXLfPmGR1XWRsy=4m-o2VS44++uLJ=ko-i2VmUhfyjRA@mail.gmail.com>

Theme: What about "Internet Governance, the Foundation of Sustainable
Development",
subthemes:
" Principles of Human rights promotion and implementation"
"Full Stakeholder Participation - the how and the why"
"Action Steps in IG for the medium term"
and of course "The implications and mitigation strategies for the
challenges of kids using the Internet"
dB

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Can we propose some other Theme, like "Internet Governance for Everyone"
> and in Sub Theme we can propose
> - "Stakeholders Meaningful participation",
> - "Result oriented dialogues"
> - "Implementation implications of Human Rights",
> - "Internet for Kids"
>
> Thanks
>
> Imran
>
> ------------------------------
> On Thu 14 Feb, 2013 2:25 AM PKT Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> >Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> >> > Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
> >> > =============================
> >> > Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be:
> >> > “Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in Internet
> >> > governance”."
> >>
> >> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
> >>
> >> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
> >
> >How about giving both suggestions:
> >
> >"A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful participation
> >of all stakeholders in Internet governance” or “Human rights and their
> >implications for Internet governance”
> >
> >?
> >
> >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
>
>


-- 
Devon Blake
Special Projects Director
Earthwise Solutions Limited
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/36d114b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From devonrb at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 13:49:45 2013
From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:49:45 -0500
Subject: [governance] Request
In-Reply-To: <E1U5bAG-0007ag-GK@igcaucus.org>
References: <E1U5bAG-0007ag-GK@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <CAE1T72R8nOivi15v3g=_2DcidLPfa_a=jz-n52ZseoaUCTy_rg@mail.gmail.com>

 Emails like the one below, has been consistently coming to my inbox, I am
pretty sure it means the list is being intruded on. Am I the only one
receiving these? maybe Jeremy or someone else could sort this out? thanks!
Devon

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Koven Ronald <kovenronald at aol.com> wrote:

>   Hello,
>
>  Sorry to bother you with this but i had a sudden trip out of the country
> to Belgium. Am here to see my ill cousin she is suffering from Kidney
> disease and must undergo Kidney transplant to save her life. Kidney
> transplant is very expensive here, so i want to transfer her back home to
> have the surgery implemented. I really need to take care of this now but my
> credit card can't work here. I traveled with little money due to the short
> time I had to prepare for this trip and never expected things to be the way
> it is right now. I need a loan of 2,000 Euros from you and I'll reimburse
> you at my return. I will really appreciate whatever amount you can come up
> with,if not all get back to me. I'll advise on how to transfer it.
>
>  Bests, Rony
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To 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
Special Projects Director
Earthwise Solutions Limited
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/fe139830/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb 14 14:17:08 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 20:17:08 +0100
Subject: : [governance] caucus contribution -> overall theme
In-Reply-To: <CAE1T72RXLfPmGR1XWRsy=4m-o2VS44++uLJ=ko-i2VmUhfyjRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1360792082.13511.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CAE1T72RXLfPmGR1XWRsy=4m-o2VS44++uLJ=ko-i2VmUhfyjRA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130214201708.1de5ce65@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC Coordinator hat on]
Devon, I'm really sorry, but we're now at a point in the process for
finalizing the statement where the deadline for suggesting solutions has
passed already.

Greetings,
Norbert

Devon Blake <devonrb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Theme: What about "Internet Governance, the Foundation of Sustainable
> Development",
> subthemes:
> " Principles of Human rights promotion and implementation"
> "Full Stakeholder Participation - the how and the why"
> "Action Steps in IG for the medium term"
> and of course "The implications and mitigation strategies for the
> challenges of kids using the Internet"
> dB
> 
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Can we propose some other Theme, like "Internet Governance for
> > Everyone" and in Sub Theme we can propose
> > - "Stakeholders Meaningful participation",
> > - "Result oriented dialogues"
> > - "Implementation implications of Human Rights",
> > - "Internet for Kids"
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Imran
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > On Thu 14 Feb, 2013 2:25 AM PKT Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >
> > >Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Paragraph 12 / Avri's comment
> > >> > =============================
> > >> > Current text: "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be:
> > >> > “Meaningful participation of all stakeholders in Internet
> > >> > governance”."
> > >>
> > >> "A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “
> > >>
> > >> Human rights and its implications for Internet governance"
> > >
> > >How about giving both suggestions:
> > >
> > >"A possible overall theme for 2013 could be: “Meaningful
> > >participation of all stakeholders in Internet governance” or
> > >“Human rights and their implications for Internet governance”
> > >
> > >?
> > >
> > >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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 15:03:22 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:03:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <051001ce0ae1$9cec1500$d6c43f00$@gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
 <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org> <20130214105511.45b2852d@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511CB551.1010406@ciroap.org> <CAAYFVLuydu+qtUZSWRVoTGOeOsevpdzNgoES9b_6_nwwkOZkTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <051001ce0ae1$9cec1500$d6c43f00$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLsg502HNGByJmSaTyBy6j0BZ1u_RXMBuimEjecjP-B=iw@mail.gmail.com>

Translated from Spanish to English


I have reason, when I say that the delay in choosing the five members was
to not have enough time to discuss new proposals. And continue with the
same.

A last minute you want to make changes without discussion with time, and
because Avri Doria has to do it at the last minute and the rest have to
vote like sheep so that proposed

You notice that conservatives do not want modernization Anything?

I imagine the choice will ostrich policy.

We are in the midst of a technological revolution, where we put the
technology of the Internet to serve people just emerging as Latin America
and the refuse and subtly.

Vested interests??

Please give me a reasonable explanation of conservative policies and set!


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/14 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>

> Unfortunately my basic Spanish even in combination with Google translate
> don't give me enough to understand what our colleague Jose is trying to
> convey to us…****
>
> ** **
>
> I'm wondering if someone who is sufficiently Spanish/English bi-lingual
> could do a rough translation that is intelligible in English (unfortunately
> the Google translate version is not…****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *José Félix Arias
> Ynche
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:59 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Norbert Bollow; Avri
> Doria; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com; devonrb at gmail.com
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution,
> consultation and MAG meeting****
>
> ** **
>
> Tengo razón, cuando digo que la tardanza en escoger a los cinco miembros
> era para que no se tenga el tiempo suficiente para debatir nuevas
> propuestas. Y seguir con lo mismo.****
>
> ** **
>
> A ultima hora se quiere hacer cambios sin debatirlos con tiempo, y porque Avri
> Doria tiene  que hacerlo a ultima hora y el resto tenga que votar como
> carneros por lo que a propuesto, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Se nota que los conservadores no quieren la modernización ¿Hay algo?****
>
> ** **
>
> Me imagino que el elegido seguirá la política del avestruz.****
>
> ** **
>
> Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos poner a
> la tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos emergentes como
> Latinoámerica y simplemente y sutilmente se los negamos. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ¿intereses creados?****
>
> ** **
>
> *¡**Por favor denme una explicación razonable y no
> de políticas conservadoras establecidas!  *****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*****
>
> *                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*****
>
> ** **
>
> 2013/2/14 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>****
>
> On 14/02/13 17:55, Norbert Bollow wrote:****
>
> Avri, Jeremy: Would prefacing the concerned paragraphs with "Some of us****
>
> suggest that..." be acceptable from your perspectives?****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes.****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599****
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013****
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational****
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.****
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t****
>
> ** **
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130214/45b42f79/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Thu Feb 14 16:35:46 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:35:46 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLsg502HNGByJmSaTyBy6j0BZ1u_RXMBuimEjecjP-B=iw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch> <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org> <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com> <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org> <20130214105511.45b2852d@quill.bollow.ch> <511CB551.1010406@ciroap.org> <CAAYFVLuydu+qtUZSWR
 VoTGOeOsevpdzNgoES9b_6_nwwkOZkTw@mail.gmail.com> <051001ce0ae1$9cec1500$d6c43f00$@gmail.com> <CAAYFVLsg502HNGByJmSaTyBy6j0BZ1u_RXMBuimEjecjP-B=iw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FB7997FF-690A-43AD-B55E-22CD3D7263F8@acm.org>

Hi,

Even translated I am not sure what it says.  But my name is in it, so I assume I am being reprimanded for some of my many transgressions.

I do admit I got my comments in late.  I had approached the task once after as it was announced, but mistakenly thought I had to be able to log in, tried and failed.  I commented on that on the list, was corrected, but then just did not get back to the task until the discussion with Parminder about where someone should comment came up and reminded me.  Given the wonderful capability the web tool offered of commenting per paragraph, I chose to use that method for commenting.

When Norbert informed me I was late, I apologized for my lateness and even indicated that my comments could be ignored if that was the right thing to do because of my tardiness.  And when Norbert was gracious enough to take them in but put a message that seemed to ask for contributed language, I did my best to comply.  Since it was I who was late in commenting I willingly spent most of a day going back and forth with language suggestions and changes.  I certainly did not think I did this transgressively.  In any case that was never my intention, even if I did react sharply to a couple of the slings and arrows tossed my way.  I know this is a "tough crowd," i expect to have things thrown at me, and I expect I will react sharply when that happens.

I certainly NEVER expect people, especially the participants in IGC, to act like sheep.  And while the co-coordinators have not called for a vote on this contribution, though they could have, I don't generally think of voting as a sheepish thing to do.

In any case thanks to Norbert and the rest of you for considering my efforts as part of completing this exercise.  I will ttry to be more timely with my efforts in the future.  Then again since I have a nasty habit of overextending myself with various volunteers efforts, I know that I will fail again and again.  But I try not to.

avri


On 14 Feb 2013, at 15:03, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote:

> Translated from Spanish to English
> 
> 
> I have reason, when I say that the delay in choosing the five members was to not have enough time to discuss new proposals. And continue with the same.
> 
> A last minute you want to make changes without discussion with time, and because Avri Doria has to do it at the last minute and the rest have to vote like sheep so that proposed
> 
> You notice that conservatives do not want modernization Anything?
> 
> I imagine the choice will ostrich policy.
> 
> We are in the midst of a technological revolution, where we put the technology of the Internet to serve people just emerging as Latin America and the refuse and subtly.
> 
> Vested interests??
> 
> Please give me a reasonable explanation of conservative policies and set!
> 
> 
> Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
>                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
> 
> 
> 2013/2/14 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Unfortunately my basic Spanish even in combination with Google translate don't give me enough to understand what our colleague Jose is trying to convey to us…
> 
>  
> 
> I'm wondering if someone who is sufficiently Spanish/English bi-lingual could do a rough translation that is intelligible in English (unfortunately the Google translate version is not…
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of José Félix Arias Ynche
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:59 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Norbert Bollow; Avri Doria; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com; devonrb at gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
> 
>  
> 
> Tengo razón, cuando digo que la tardanza en escoger a los cinco miembros era para que no se tenga el tiempo suficiente para debatir nuevas propuestas. Y seguir con lo mismo.
> 
>  
> 
> A ultima hora se quiere hacer cambios sin debatirlos con tiempo, y porque Avri Doria tiene  que hacerlo a ultima hora y el resto tenga que votar como carneros por lo que a propuesto, 
> 
>  
> 
> Se nota que los conservadores no quieren la modernización ¿Hay algo?
> 
>  
> 
> Me imagino que el elegido seguirá la política del avestruz.
> 
>  
> 
> Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos poner a la tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos emergentes como Latinoámerica y simplemente y sutilmente se los negamos. 
> 
>  
> 
> ¿intereses creados?
> 
>  
> 
> ¡Por favor denme una explicación razonable y no de políticas conservadoras establecidas!  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
> 
>                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
> 
>  
> 
> 2013/2/14 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> 
> On 14/02/13 17:55, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> Avri, Jeremy: Would prefacing the concerned paragraphs with "Some of us
> suggest that..." be acceptable from your perspectives?
>  
> 
> Yes.
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> 
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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 Feb 14 16:46:30 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:46:30 +1200
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri, Jose and All:

You are a valuable contributor to the discussions. The beautiful thing
about Forums is that it creates a platform for rich and dynamic discussion
with people from virtually all walks of life, diverse contexts and
socialisation. One of the challenges within matters pertaining to global
internet governance is the ability to communicate.

As Michael pointed out, online Translators do not always work and can be a
challenge. However, with something as diverse and versatile as global
internet governance, there is a need to be inclusive whilst ensuring that
there is proper communication.

After all global public interest would dictate that the world is diverse
but over time, we have come to an unspoken consensus that we will
communicate in English and there are many versions of it- ;)

How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity? Any
thoughts?

Kind Regards,


On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Even translated I am not sure what it says.  But my name is in it, so I
> assume I am being reprimanded for some of my many transgressions.
>
> I do admit I got my comments in late.  I had approached the task once
> after as it was announced, but mistakenly thought I had to be able to log
> in, tried and failed.  I commented on that on the list, was corrected, but
> then just did not get back to the task until the discussion with Parminder
> about where someone should comment came up and reminded me.  Given the
> wonderful capability the web tool offered of commenting per paragraph, I
> chose to use that method for commenting.
>
> When Norbert informed me I was late, I apologized for my lateness and even
> indicated that my comments could be ignored if that was the right thing to
> do because of my tardiness.  And when Norbert was gracious enough to take
> them in but put a message that seemed to ask for contributed language, I
> did my best to comply.  Since it was I who was late in commenting I
> willingly spent most of a day going back and forth with language
> suggestions and changes.  I certainly did not think I did this
> transgressively.  In any case that was never my intention, even if I did
> react sharply to a couple of the slings and arrows tossed my way.  I know
> this is a "tough crowd," i expect to have things thrown at me, and I expect
> I will react sharply when that happens.
>
> I certainly NEVER expect people, especially the participants in IGC, to
> act like sheep.  And while the co-coordinators have not called for a vote
> on this contribution, though they could have, I don't generally think of
> voting as a sheepish thing to do.
>
> In any case thanks to Norbert and the rest of you for considering my
> efforts as part of completing this exercise.  I will ttry to be more timely
> with my efforts in the future.  Then again since I have a nasty habit of
> overextending myself with various volunteers efforts, I know that I will
> fail again and again.  But I try not to.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 14 Feb 2013, at 15:03, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote:
>
> > Translated from Spanish to English
> >
> >
> > I have reason, when I say that the delay in choosing the five members
> was to not have enough time to discuss new proposals. And continue with the
> same.
> >
> > A last minute you want to make changes without discussion with time, and
> because Avri Doria has to do it at the last minute and the rest have to
> vote like sheep so that proposed
> >
> > You notice that conservatives do not want modernization Anything?
> >
> > I imagine the choice will ostrich policy.
> >
> > We are in the midst of a technological revolution, where we put the
> technology of the Internet to serve people just emerging as Latin America
> and the refuse and subtly.
> >
> > Vested interests??
> >
> > Please give me a reasonable explanation of conservative policies and set!
> >
> >
> > Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
> >                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
> >
> >
> > 2013/2/14 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> > Unfortunately my basic Spanish even in combination with Google translate
> don't give me enough to understand what our colleague Jose is trying to
> convey to us…
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm wondering if someone who is sufficiently Spanish/English bi-lingual
> could do a rough translation that is intelligible in English (unfortunately
> the Google translate version is not…
> >
> >
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of José Félix Arias Ynche
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:59 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Norbert Bollow; Avri
> Doria; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com; devonrb at gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution,
> consultation and MAG meeting
> >
> >
> >
> > Tengo razón, cuando digo que la tardanza en escoger a los cinco miembros
> era para que no se tenga el tiempo suficiente para debatir nuevas
> propuestas. Y seguir con lo mismo.
> >
> >
> >
> > A ultima hora se quiere hacer cambios sin debatirlos con tiempo, y
> porque Avri Doria tiene  que hacerlo a ultima hora y el resto tenga que
> votar como carneros por lo que a propuesto,
> >
> >
> >
> > Se nota que los conservadores no quieren la modernización ¿Hay algo?
> >
> >
> >
> > Me imagino que el elegido seguirá la política del avestruz.
> >
> >
> >
> > Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos poner a
> la tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos emergentes como
> Latinoámerica y simplemente y sutilmente se los negamos.
> >
> >
> >
> > ¿intereses creados?
> >
> >
> >
> > ¡Por favor denme una explicación razonable y no de políticas
> conservadoras establecidas!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
> >
> >                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/2/14 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> >
> > On 14/02/13 17:55, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >
> > Avri, Jeremy: Would prefacing the concerned paragraphs with "Some of us
> > suggest that..." be acceptable from your perspectives?
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> > Senior Policy Officer
> > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
> > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
> >
> > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
> >
> > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> >
> > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/ee71acd5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Fri Feb 15 02:46:24 2013
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:16:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] Call for nominations for choosing IGC nominees for the
 CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.
Message-ID: <511DE7D0.3010506@ITforChange.net>

Call for nominations for choosing IGC nominees for the CSTD Working 
Group on Enhanced Cooperation

The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), 2013 Nominating Committee is 
issuing a call for nominations for choosing Internet Governance Caucus 
(IGC) nominees for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (CSTD 
WG-EC).

* 1. DEADLINE for submission of nominations to nomcom is: February 22nd 
- 23:59 Geneva Time**
* 2. Please submit nominations –including self-nominations to 
nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org  <mailto:nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org>. In 
nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent to be on the 
WG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for candidature
  3. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention 
with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person 
in the IG and information society arena.
  4. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person 
will be a good Civil Society (CS)/ IGC representative on the WG.
  5. Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for 
the WG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies, 
including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies 
and the IGC informed about the WG proceedings and related matters, as 
well as present/ push their positions in the WG.

  6. At a minimum, all nominations and self-nominations should consist 
of the following:
      1. Name
      2. Name of nominator (or self)
      3. Nationality
      4. Country of Residence
      5. Gender
      6. Short Bio relevant to IG
      7. What specific skills or experiences do you have that make you a 
good candidate for the CSTD WG-EC

Nomcom has chosen the following as the criteria for selecting the final 
list of nominees

  7. Key criteria:
      1. Regular contributor to IGC with knowledge of the UN System
      2. Effective communication and consultative style with IGC members
      3. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives 
held by civil society
      4. Stated vision for enhanced co-operation
      5. Capacity, knowledge and experience in the potential for the 
Internet to enhance human and societal development
      6. Capacity, knowledge and experience in the political aspects of 
enhanced co-operation including the differing perspectives on sovereign 
rights, freedom of expression, access to information
      7. Proven commitment to human rights based solutions for 
cooperative Internet Governance


Optional criteria:
      8. Formal qualifications relevant to the CSTD WG on EC.
      9. Works in an organisational context that supports participation 
in the EC discussions

Other considerations for the NomCom:
     10. Achieving a gender balance
     11. Achieving a balance of representation from north/south, 
developed/developing countries
     12. Achieving a balance between nominees strengths in the 
technical, political and development spheres

  8. IMPORTANT DATES
      1. Nomcom starts, and nomination for CSTD WG-EC opens- February 
15th, 2013
      2. Nomination close - February 22nd, 2013
      3. Nomcom confers between 22nd and 28th, 2013
      4. Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for WG –March 1, 2013

On behalf of the Nominating Committee: Tracey Naughton, Devon Blake, 
Jose Felix Arias Ynche, Lillian Nalwoga and Sarah Kiden


Regards,

Gurumurthy Kasinathan
(non-voting chair)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/33f6aa6b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Revised call for nominations to CSTD WG Feb 2013.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 43304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/33f6aa6b/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb 15 05:04:23 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:04:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] caucus contribution -> FINAL UPDATE
In-Reply-To: <20130214144219.170b8128@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <1360792082.13511.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<20130213233650.31527fdd@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130214120646.71c9217e@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130214144219.170b8128@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130215110423.39b57630@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Dear all

Here's my final official update on our caucus contribution.

Since no objections have been made to any of the proposed resolutions
that were the outcome of the consensus process (as listed in the email
titled "caucus contribution -> LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES") the
resulting text has been adopted by consensus as a caucus statement,
and I've sent it to IGF Secretariat late yesterday evening.

My sincere thanks to all who participated in this process, contributing
to what I think is a very worthwhile result.

The statement is now also online on igcaucus.org for reference.

One lesson learned is definitely that next time we develop a statement
for which there is a fixed deadline, if we want to use a similar kind
of process, we should move from informal editing to the formal
consensus process way earlier, allowing significantly more time for
the consensus process. Also there should be more prominent
announcements of the timeline for that process well in advance.

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  Fri Feb 15 05:17:19 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:17:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>

Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity?
> Any thoughts?

Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for

a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;

b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
   users of the Spanish language;

c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
   community, who able to communicate in English as well as in Spanish,
   and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf of
   Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language skills
   to be able to effectively engage directly

?

Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
Caucus", etc.

If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
followed by other language groups.

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 ias_pk at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 06:06:25 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 03:06:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1360926385.33983.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Thanks Sala for
your complements for the contributors of the discussion who finalized the
statement with keen interest.
>How
can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity? Any thoughts?

In my opinion,
1.  As a common
practice, if the machine translation tool is being used when contributor is not
conversant with the English, it is recommended to quote both versions/text
simultaneously. LACNIC is use to follow the same practice.However, we should not assume that the IGC coordinators have to
translate the comments or inputs in to multiple languages, or to ask the
members to elaborate their point of view. Otherwise their pre-qualification
will multi-language skills.
2.    Some of the members (who may not be involved
in the discussion of each the segment of any joint statement) may have feeling
like they are acting as sheep (or being utilized as rubber stamp), because they
may be asked for voting to establish a significant identification of the level
of consensus. Normally few members actively contribute in a discussion and at
the end of discussion they achieve a goal by finalizing a common statement, a
joint agreement or disagreement. The main contributors should have to be
encouraged. However, everyone on the list is receiving the contents of
discussion but if they do not share their thoughts in time, or show agreement or disagreement during the
discussion period, they should not feel that they were ignored. However, the the statement may not be stated as a representation of full consensus. This is a
de facto problem of the democratic setup, which needs majority vote (even if
the problem is genuine, solution provider is honest and proposed solution is
excellent in global public interest), that is why the finalized version of the
statement or decision is submitted to the member of the community for their
vote. Actually it is a short method to obtain a quick identification of the
level of consensus. So, the members other than contributors of the discussion
should not feel it, because they missed the chance and opportunity of sharing their thoughts
during a common discussion. Due to time constraint, they may not be able to
change the contents of the statement but they are always open to give their
observation in favor or against.
Regards
Imran Ahmed Shah

>________________________________
> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 
>Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 2:46
>Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
>  
>
>Hi Avri, Jose and All:
>
>You are a valuable contributor to the discussions. The beautiful thing about Forums is that it creates a platform for rich and dynamic discussion with people from virtually all walks of life, diverse contexts and socialisation. One of the challenges within matters pertaining to global internet governance is the ability to communicate.
>
>As Michael pointed out, online Translators do not always work and can be a challenge. However, with something as diverse and versatile as global internet governance, there is a need to be inclusive whilst ensuring that there is proper communication.
>
>After all global public interest would dictate that the world is diverse but over time, we have come to an unspoken consensus that we will communicate in English and there are many versions of it- ;)
>
>How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity? Any thoughts?
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>
>
>On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>>
>>Even translated I am not sure what it says.  But my name is in it, so I assume I am being reprimanded for some of my many transgressions.
>>
>>I do admit I got my comments in late.  I had approached the task once after as it was announced, but mistakenly thought I had to be able to log in, tried and failed.  I commented on that on the list, was corrected, but then just did not get back to the task until the discussion with Parminder about where someone should comment came up and reminded me.  Given the wonderful capability the web tool offered of commenting per paragraph, I chose to use that method for commenting.
>>
>>When Norbert informed me I was late, I apologized for my lateness and even indicated that my comments could be ignored if that was the right thing to do because of my tardiness.  And when Norbert was gracious enough to take them in but put a message that seemed to ask for contributed language, I did my best to comply.  Since it was I who was late in commenting I willingly spent most of a day going back and forth with language suggestions and changes.  I certainly did not think I did this transgressively.  In any case that was never my intention, even if I did react sharply to a couple of the slings and arrows tossed my way.  I know this is a "tough crowd," i expect to have things thrown at me, and I expect I will react sharply when that happens.
>>
>>I certainly NEVER expect people, especially the participants in IGC, to act like sheep.  And while the co-coordinators have not called for a vote on this contribution, though they could have, I don't generally think of voting as a sheepish thing to do.
>>
>>In any case thanks to Norbert and the rest of you for considering my efforts as part of completing this exercise.  I will ttry to be more timely with my efforts in the future.  Then again since I have a nasty habit of overextending myself with various volunteers efforts, I know that I will fail again and again.  But I try not to.
>>
>>avri
>>
>>
>>
>>On 14 Feb 2013, at 15:03, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote:
>>
>>> Translated from Spanish to English
>>>
>>>
>>> I have reason, when I say that the delay in choosing the five members was to not have enough time to discuss new proposals. And continue with the same.
>>>
>>> A last minute you want to make changes without discussion with time, and because Avri Doria has to do it at the last minute and the rest have to vote like sheep so that proposed
>>>
>>> You notice that conservatives do not want modernization Anything?
>>>
>>> I imagine the choice will ostrich policy.
>>>
>>> We are in the midst of a technological revolution, where we put the technology of the Internet to serve people just emerging as Latin America and the refuse and subtly.
>>>
>>> Vested interests??
>>>
>>> Please give me a reasonable explanation of conservative policies and set!
>>>
>>>
>>> Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
>>>                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/2/14 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>>> Unfortunately my basic Spanish even in combination with Google translate don't give me enough to understand what our colleague Jose is trying to convey to us…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if someone who is sufficiently Spanish/English bi-lingual could do a rough translation that is intelligible in English (unfortunately the Google translate version is not…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of José Félix Arias Ynche
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:59 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Norbert Bollow; Avri Doria; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com; devonrb at gmail.com
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tengo razón, cuando digo que la tardanza en escoger a los cinco miembros era para que no se tenga el tiempo suficiente para debatir nuevas propuestas. Y seguir con lo mismo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A ultima hora se quiere hacer cambios sin debatirlos con tiempo, y porque Avri Doria tiene  que hacerlo a ultima hora y el resto tenga que votar como carneros por lo que a propuesto,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Se nota que los conservadores no quieren la modernización ¿Hay algo?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Me imagino que el elegido seguirá la política del avestruz.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos poner a la tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos emergentes como Latinoámerica y simplemente y sutilmente se los negamos.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ¿intereses creados?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ¡Por favor denme una explicación razonable y no de políticas conservadoras establecidas!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
>>>
>>>                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/2/14 Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>>
>>> On 14/02/13 17:55, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>>
>>> Avri, Jeremy: Would prefacing the concerned paragraphs with "Some of us
>>> suggest that..." be acceptable from your perspectives?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Policy Officer
>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>
>>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>>>
>>> @Consumers_Int | http://www.consumersinternational.org/ | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>P.O. Box 17862
>Suva
>Fiji
>
>
>Twitter: @SalanietaT
>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 
>Tel: +679 3544828
>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
> 
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/f9c6f05d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 06:27:51 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 03:27:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <1360927671.16118.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Dear Norbert, 
Please do not take it
personally, your advise for the establishment of separate linguistic groups is
not being referred only for the French but for all other languages to which the
belongs member of the IGC. When we say a suitable balanced community
representation, that also mean that the linguistic diversity is inclusively
covered. 
 
Thanks, 
 
Imran
 

>________________________________
> From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> 
>Cc: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 
>Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:17
>Subject: Re: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
>  
>Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity?
>> Any thoughts?
>
>Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
>motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
>
>a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
>
>b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
>   users of the Spanish language;
>
>c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
>   community, who able to communicate in English as well as in Spanish,
>   and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf of
>   Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language skills
>   to be able to effectively engage directly
>
>?
>
>Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
>Caucus", etc.
>
>If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
>followed by other language groups.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/8b4747e7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pouzin at well.com  Fri Feb 15 08:23:12 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:23:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] What's up on digital civil rights in Europe
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYrC_LB7Z195jk0Y9OsCYHGievTydNezMu-Z+=5iyUe+8A@mail.gmail.com>

EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 11.3, 13 February 2013

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: EDRi-gram <edrigram at edri.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Subject: EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 11.3, 13 February 2013


====================================================================

EDRi-gram

biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe

Number 11.3, 13 February 2013

==============================**==============================**===========
Contents
==============================**==============================**===========

1. Copyright: challenges of the digital era
2. Most Internet users would use DNT settings if easily available
3. US privacy groups believe US officials lobby to weaken EU privacy
4. Dutch government maintains private copying-exception for downloading
5. Denmark: Government postpones the data retention law evaluation
6. Ancillary copyright law under discussion in Germany
7. Human rights orgs ask OECD to investigate surveillance companies
8. Big Brother Awards 2013 Bulgaria
9. ENDitorial: Licences for Europe and fight club... only one rule
10. Recommended Action: support your privacy rights
11. Recommended Reading
12. Agenda
13. About

==============================**==============================**===========
1. Copyright: challenges of the digital era
==============================**==============================**===========

EDRi has freshly launched a booklet that overviews the challenges that
copyright is facing in the digital environment.

For the past twelve years, the European Union has discussed how to
support, develop and protect creation in the digital environment. Two
months ago, the College of Commissioners recognised the necessity that
copyright “stays fit for purpose” in the digital economy.

Until now, the focus point has been on the enforcement of pre-existing
legislative norms not only within the rule of law but also through
private policing via internet service providers. However, despite all
these efforts, there is still an ubiquitous lack of respect for copyright.

The booklet looks at the reasons for this profound gap that has emerged
between citizens and the law. Following a brief introduction to the
logic behind granting monopoly rights, the booklet lists some reasons
that lead to difficulties in respecting copyright law, ranging from
excessive penalties for breaching the law to legally-protected
restrictions on citizens' rights to use digital products they paid for.
It then focuses on the impact of rigid and outdated copyright law on
legitimate businesses. Finally, it gives a glance at the wide range of
excessive enforcement measures that underline the deterioration of
copyright leading to unreasonable and wrongful practices.

In short, this booklet presents a simplified overview of the
difficulties facing public support for copyright. EDRi hopes that it
will have a positive impact on the current debate regarding the
necessity of reforming copyright law and adapting the current system to
the digital age, allowing the achievement of the digital single market,
removing existing barriers and giving citizens a better access to their
culture.

Copyright: challenges of the digital era (02.2013)
http://www.edri.org/files/**paper07_copyright.pdf<http://www.edri.org/files/paper07_copyright.pdf>

Commission agrees way forward for modernising copyright in the digital
economy (5.12.2012)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-**release_MEMO-12-950_en.htm<http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-950_en.htm>

Report from the Commission on the application of Directive 2004/48/EC
(22.12.2010)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/**LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=**
COM:2010:0779:FIN:EN:PDF<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0779:FIN:EN:PDF>

(Contribution by Marie Humeau - EDRi)

==============================**==============================**===========
2. Most Internet users would use DNT settings if easily available
==============================**==============================**===========

According to a survey by IT service analysts Ovum, 68% of the Internet
users would use “do-not-track” (DNT) settings to restrict the use of
their personal data, if such a tool was "easily available”.

Websites and third-parties, such as advertisers, may record Internet
users’ behaviour in order to serve targeted, personalised ads. Such
user-specific data can be collected by several means, including the use
of cookies. The information thus stored can be passed on by operators to
advertisers for behavioural adverts, based on the users' activity and
declared interests.

Yet, lately, consumers have become more aware of the fact that their
personal information can be used as merchandise. Ovum’s survey has shown
that only 14% of consumers believe Internet firms are honest about the
way they use their consumers' personal data. "Unfortunately, in the gold
rush that is big data, taking the supply of ‘little data’ – personal
data – for granted seems to be an accident waiting to happen," said Mark
Little, principal analyst at Ovum who added: "However, consumers are
being empowered with new tools and services to monitor, control, and
secure their personal data as never before, and it seems they
increasingly have the motivation to use them."

In Little’s opinion, the Internet companies would have to change their
attitudes towards their customers. The operators should make privacy
tools available to consumers and use “a new set of messages to change
consumers’ attitudes. These messages must be based on positive direct
relationships, engagement with consumers, and the provision of genuine
and trustworthy privacy controls.” Although EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes
had previously asked for a new DNT standard to enable Internet users to
indicate their consent for the use of their personal data in a manner
that would comply with the EU's Privacy and Electronic Communications
Directive, last year she indicated that she would accept a DNT
standard that would only partially meet the requirements under the
Directive. Under the EU's amended Privacy and Electronic Communications
Directive, storing and accessing information on users' computers is only
lawful "on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his
or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive
information … about the purposes of the processing".

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has been working on developing a new
DNT controls system which, in its opinion, should not be switched on by
default but require an explicit instruction to operate. Firefox has
already implemented it since 2011.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has developed its own DNT tool for its new
Internet Explorer 10 web browser. The DNT setting is automatically
activated and the users have to change the settings in case they wish to
let websites and advertising networks track their online activity. This
has obviously crossed advertising companies and the system does not
actually guarantee that all companies would respect it. Yahoo! for
instance, has stated that it would not "recognise IE10’s default DNT
signal".

Google introduced the DNT standard in November 2012, with the launching
of its Chrome 23, but warned that the results could be variable. "The
effectiveness of such requests is dependent on how websites and services
respond, so Google is working with others on a common way to respond to
these requests in the future," wrote Google engineer Ami Fischman on the
company’s blog.

Most consumers would activate do-not-track privacy settings if they were
'easily available', according to Ovum survey (6.02.2013)
http://www.out-law.com/en/**articles/2013/february/most-**
consumers-would-activate-do-**not-track-privacy-settings-if-**
they-were-easily-available-**according-to-ovum-survey/<http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/february/most-consumers-would-activate-do-not-track-privacy-settings-if-they-were-easily-available-according-to-ovum-survey/>

The data black hole that could suck the life out of the internet economy
(8.02.2013)
http://www.zdnet.com/the-data-**black-hole-that-could-suck-**
the-life-out-of-the-internet-**economy-7000011002/<http://www.zdnet.com/the-data-black-hole-that-could-suck-the-life-out-of-the-internet-economy-7000011002/>

Google's Chrome finally embraces Do Not Track, but with a warning
(7.11.2012)
http://www.zdnet.com/googles-**chrome-finally-embraces-do-**
not-track-but-with-a-warning-**7000007022/<http://www.zdnet.com/googles-chrome-finally-embraces-do-not-track-but-with-a-warning-7000007022/>

==============================**==============================**===========
3. US privacy groups believe US officials lobby to weaken EU privacy
==============================**==============================**===========

A coalition of 18 US privacy groups sent a letter on 30 January 2013 to
US politicians such as the Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary
of State John Kerry and the Acting Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank,
asking for assurances that US policy makers in Europe "advance the aim
of privacy" and do not hinder the European data law proposals.

The European Union is considering the data protection regulation that
could give the citizens significant control over the use of their
personal data by websites and marketing companies. Several proposals
would require companies to obtain permission before collecting personal
data and specify exactly what information will be collected and how it
will be used.

One proposal refers to the so-called “right to be forgotten” that
obliges companies like Facebook to delete all information about users
who want to do that. The coalition shows concern over the fact that, as
the new EU Data Protection Regulation is under discussion and debate,
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have lately reported that US
policy makers are "mounting an unprecedented lobbying campaign to limit
the protections that European law would provide."

The privacy groups believe that U.S. policymakers, politicians and
bureaucrats are undermining the work of the European Parliament. "The
U.S. should not stand in the way of Europe's efforts to strengthen and
modernize its legal framework," the letter states. Jeff Chester,
Executive Director of the Center for Digital Democracy told ZDNet that
despite President Obama’s pro-privacy speeches, his administration is
"working to protect the U.S. data lobby."

He added: "One of the U.S.' few growth areas is stealing other peoples
data. So, the U.S. is arguing that the EU should not enact strong
baselines rules requiring citizens to provide affirmative consent for
such critical uses as profiling, and adopt its weak industry friendly
approach based primarily on industry self-regulation."

EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said in 2012 that the lobbying
effort had been "absolutely fierce" and unprecedented in scale.

On 3 February 2013, the head of a big pan-European industry group
revealed "intensifying pressure from U.S. lobbyists on behalf of
Google and Facebook," as reported the Financial Times. Jacob
Kohnstamm, the chairman of the EU's Article 29 Working Party also said
European lawmakers were "fed up" of U.S. lobbying.

The letter of the coalition notes that updating the U.S. Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), under which authorities need only a
subpoena approved by a federal prosecutor, rather than a judge, to
obtain electronically stored messages six months old or older, would be
a good start for the U.S. officials to bring the country in compliance
with international human rights standards.

The US lobby has shown its practical results after several newspapers
and websites have pointed out that MEPs in the EP's Internal Market and
Consumer Committee (IMCO) have included copy-paste amendments written by
Amazon, eBay or the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham EU).

Privacy groups call on U.S. government to stop lobbying against EU data
law changes (4.02.2013)
http://www.zdnet.com/privacy-**groups-call-on-u-s-government-**
to-stop-lobbying-against-eu-**data-law-changes-7000010721/<http://www.zdnet.com/privacy-groups-call-on-u-s-government-to-stop-lobbying-against-eu-data-law-changes-7000010721/>

The E.U. could approve a new privacy policy later this year. Europe
Moves Ahead on Privacy (3.02.2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/**02/04/opinion/europe-moves-**
ahead-on-privacy-laws.html<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/opinion/europe-moves-ahead-on-privacy-laws.html>

Lobby groups take CTRL+V of data protection proposal (11.02.2013)
http://edri.org/lobbyplag-**eudatap <http://edri.org/lobbyplag-eudatap>

LobbyPlag
http://www.lobbyplag.eu/

==============================**==============================**===========
4. Dutch government maintains private copying-exception for downloading
==============================**==============================**===========

The Dutch government announced that it wouldn't prohibit the
unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material.

It did so on 4 February 2013 in a letter to the Parliament, putting an
end to a heated debate that lasted for years. As a result, the
Netherlands remains one of the few countries in Europe where downloading
without permission of the rightsholders is allowed under the private
copying-exception. Dutch digital rights organisation Bits of Freedom
urged that this should be the first step in a long overdue modernisation
of the copyright system.

The Dutch government responded to a resolution by the Dutch Parliament
earlier this year. In this resolution, the Parliament called on the
government to maintain the application of the private copying-exception
to downloading. It did so after the government did not respond to a
similar resolution one year earlier, instead continuing its plans to
abolish the private copying-exception for downloading. Now, however, it
admitted defeat in the face of enduring opposition.

Bits of Freedom hopes that this decision paves the way for the
modernisation of the copyright system. Past political endeavours focused
on the criminalisation of sharing by individual internet users. This is
counterproductive and does not address the real challenge: ensuring that
knowledge and culture is shared as widely as possible while remunerating
rightsholders. The Dutch government should start together with the
Parliament exploring remuneration models which support this goal.

Letter of government to parliament (only in Dutch, 04.02.2013)
https://www.bof.nl/live/wp-**content/uploads/**briefTeeven040213.pdf<https://www.bof.nl/live/wp-content/uploads/briefTeeven040213.pdf>

Resolution of Dutch parliament (only in Dutch, 11.12.2012)
https://www.bof.nl/2012/12/11/**parlement-spreekt-zich-uit-**
tegen-downloadverbod/<https://www.bof.nl/2012/12/11/parlement-spreekt-zich-uit-tegen-downloadverbod/>

Blog Bits of Freedom: Download Prohibition finally buried (only in
Dutch, 05.02.2013)
https://www.bof.nl/2013/02/05/**downloadverbod-eindelijk-**begraven/<https://www.bof.nl/2013/02/05/downloadverbod-eindelijk-begraven/>

(Contribution by Ot van Daalen - EDRi member Bits of Freedom Netherlands)

==============================**==============================**===========
5. Denmark: Government postpones the data retention law evaluation
==============================**==============================**===========

In the coming months, the Danish Parliament will conduct an evaluation
and revision of the Danish data retention law which implements directive
2006/24/EC. The review process has been postponed twice on earlier
occasions (2010 and 2012), and the Danish government wants another
two-year extension, officially in order to coordinate with any changes
in the directive at the EU level.

The Danish law exceeds the requirements of the data retention directive
in several respects, especially as far as Internet logging is concerned.
The Danish law contains a requirement for session logging which includes
data about every Internet packet being transmitted.

Specifically, the following information must be retained: source and
destination IP address, source and destination port number, transmission
protocol (like TCP and UDP) and timestamps. The contents of the
Internet packets are not being logged, but the IP addresses will contain
information about visits to websites of political parties (that is, in
effect, registration of political preferences) and the online news
services that the citizen reads. Last year in the Danish Parliament,
there was considerable debate about the Danish over-implementation of
the data retention directive, in particular Internet session logging.

The Parliament instructed the Danish government to produce an evaluation
report with special focus on session logging. The Danish Ministry of
Justice published this report in December 2012.

The evaluation report contains detailed descriptions of nine police
cases where telephone logging was useful, or maybe even critical, to the
Danish police. These cases are taken from an earlier report submitted to
the EU Commission. All nine cases are about serious and violent crimes
such as murder, armed robbery and organized narcotics smuggling.

For Internet logging there are only three police cases. Moreover, one of
the three cases is really about telephone logging since location data
from a mobile device is used by the police. The location registration
just happens to be triggered by "data calls" from a smartphone. This
leaves two police cases to demonstrate the value of internet logging,
and only one case uses session logging. Both cases involve economic
crimes (fraud) on a relatively minor scale. There is a huge discrepancy
between the nature of the police cases involving telephone and Internet
logging.

The report confirms the EDRi member IT-Pol suspicion that Internet
logging, and especially Internet session logging, is rarely used by the
Danish police. Quite interestingly, the Ministry of Justice formally
states in their own evaluation report that session logging was
implemented in a way that made it useless for the police (the
implementation is according to the requirements of the law). Before
September 2007, the Danish Internet service providers repeatedly warned
the Ministry of Justice that session logging would be useless for the
police.

The Danish Ministry of Justice report (only in Danish, 12.2012)
http://www.ft.dk/samling/**20121/lovforslag/l142/bilag/2/**1213533.pdf<http://www.ft.dk/samling/20121/lovforslag/l142/bilag/2/1213533.pdf>

Danish government wants to postpone the evaluation of the data retention
law for the third time (12.02.2013)
http://www.itpol.dk/notater/**Danish-data-retention-**evaluation-Feb13<http://www.itpol.dk/notater/Danish-data-retention-evaluation-Feb13>

EDRi-gram: Key privacy concerns in Denmark 2007 (30.01.2008)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/**number6.2/privacy-denmark-2007<http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.2/privacy-denmark-2007>

(Contribution by Jesper Lund, EDRi member IT-Pol Denmark)

==============================**==============================**===========
6. Ancillary copyright law under discussion in Germany
==============================**==============================**===========

The Judiciary Committee of the German Bundestag held on 30 January 2013
an expert hearing on the proposed “Leistungsschutzrecht” (LRS, known
also as “ancillary copyright”) law for news publishers which will
require search engines and others to ask permission from news publishers
to link to their content or even give summarize news content.

The draft law was criticized by civil society groups as well as the
German association of Internet economy which pointed out the lack of
clarity of the terms used in the text and the negative effects that the
law may bring by restricting the diversity of information on the
internet. Moreover, the legislation is superfluous as publishers are
already protected by copyright provisions. If this bill is enacted
as-is, search engines would be allowed to display snippets only after
having received permission which may involve or not some payment to the
news publishers.

In some cases, a press publisher might pay a search engine to be
included in its searches. The important issue is that a search engine,
and maybe even social networks, will be obliged to ask permission to
provide snippets from a news publisher. The law has several unclear
areas. For instance, it is not clear whether blogs will be considered as
press products due to the vague definition of the term. The expert
hearing was not focused on technological expertise but rather
on how such a law might fit into the current legal framework.

A representative from the publishers’ associations asked for a
technical language to express conditions such as temporal, topical or
size restrictions, payment requirements and other conditions but did not
succeed in presenting a proper way of how this could be implemented. All
experts in the hearing agreed the law would create a period (estimated
at about 5 years) of legal uncertainty, requiring a series of lawsuits
before realizing who will actually be within the sights of the LRS. This
uncertainty also applies when we talk about Facebook or Twitter. It is
not yet clear whether the law will cover only search engines such as
Google or it will extend to social networks. MP Siegfried Kauder of the
Christian Democrats party stated that in his opinion, after hearing the
experts, there seemed to be no reason for the promotion of the law as,
it appeared to be unlikely the law would help in actually producing new
income for news publishers.

In the meantime, in France, Google seems to give in under similar
pressure. Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google made a statement on
the company blog on 1 February 2013, in an attempt to point out that the
search engine had generated “billions of clicks each month” for news
publishers, “and our advertising solutions (in which we have
invested billions of dollars) help them make money from that traffic.”

But Schmidt also stated that on the same date, he, together
with President Hollande of France, announced two new initiatives “to
help stimulate innovation and increase revenues for French publishers.”

One was the creation of a 60 million euro Digital Publishing Innovation
Fund financed by Google “to help support transformative digital
publishing initiatives for French readers.” The second initiative is to
increase the partnership with French publishers “to help increase their
online revenues using our advertising technology.”

German Parliament Hears Experts On Proposed Law To Limit Search Engines
(31.01.2013)
http://searchengineland.com/**german-leistungsschutzrecht-**146826<http://searchengineland.com/german-leistungsschutzrecht-146826>

Google creates €60m Digital Publishing Innovation Fund to support
transformative French digital publishing initiatives (1.02.2013)
http://googleblog.blogspot.co.**uk/2013/02/google-creates-60m-**
digital-publishing.html<http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/google-creates-60m-digital-publishing.html>

EDRi-gram: Ancillary copyright madness in Germany and France (26.09.2012)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/**number10.18/ancillary-**
copyright-proposal-madness<http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.18/ancillary-copyright-proposal-madness>

==============================**==============================**===========
7. Human rights orgs ask OECD to investigate surveillance companies
==============================**==============================**===========

In the beginning of February 2013 several human rights organisations,
including Privacy International, the European Center for
Constitutional and Human Rights, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights,
Bahrain Watch and Reporters without Borders, filed formal complaints
against surveillance software firms Gamma International and Trovicor.

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development)
National Contact Point (NCP) in the UK was asked to investigate Gamma
International regarding the company’s potential complicity in serious
human rights abuses in Bahrain and in Germany, the complaint was
directed against Munich-based Trovicor.

In the opinion of the complainants, there are grounds to believe that
the surveillance products and services provided by the two companies
have led to human rights abuses in Bahrain, including arbitrary
detention and torture, violations of the right to privacy, freedom of
expression and freedom of association. It appears that the information
gathered from intercepted phone and internet communications have been
used to detain and torture bloggers, political dissidents and activists
and to extract confessions from them. If the investigation concludes
that the complaints have a real basis, the companies are likely to be
found in breach of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
which sets out principles and standards for responsible business conduct.

“The failure of governments to properly control exports of surveillance
technology has left companies like Gamma and Trovicor regulated
exclusively by their own moral compasses. Unfortunately, these compasses
seem to have malfunctioned and directed companies towards some of the
most dangerous and repressive regimes in the world. We very much hope
the OECD process will persuade Gamma and Trovicor to take a long hard
look at their current and future clients, and to think carefully about
the role their products play in the targeting and torture of activists
and the suppression of pro-democracy voices,” stated Eric King, Head of
Research at Privacy International.

Miriam Saage-Maaß, Vice Legal Director at ECCHR, said: “By maintaining
permanent business relations with the state of Bahrain and maintaining
their surveillance software, both companies have accepted the risk that
they may be accused of abetting torture and other grave human rights
violations. If true, such actions would amount to a violation of the
OECD Guidelines.”

These are not the only companies involved in providing surveillance
equipment to countries where freedom of expression is oppressed. Many
suppliers, besides the two companies in question, such as Nokia Siemens
Networks, Hacking Team and Bull / Amesys have supplied equipment to
Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Morocco and many more countries that have
violated human rights during the last years.

Human rights organisations filed formal complaints with the OECD against
surveillance companies (4.02.2013)
http://en.rsf.org/bahrein-**human-rights-organisations-**
file-04-02-2013,44016.html<http://en.rsf.org/bahrein-human-rights-organisations-file-04-02-2013,44016.html>

Briefing note on OECD Complaints against Gamma International and
Trovicor in the UK and Germany (02.2013)
http://www.statewatch.org/**news/2013/feb/oecd-complaint.**pdf<http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/feb/oecd-complaint.pdf>

Human rights organisations file formal complaints against surveillance
firms Gamma International and Trovicor with British and German
governments (3.02.2013)
https://www.**privacyinternational.org/**press-releases/human-rights-**
organisations-file-formal-**complaints-against-**surveillance-firms-gamma<https://www.privacyinternational.org/press-releases/human-rights-organisations-file-formal-complaints-against-surveillance-firms-gamma>

EDRi-gram: Export Controls for Digital Weapons (19.12.2013)
http://edri.org/edrigram/**number10.24/export-controls-**digital-weapons<http://edri.org/edrigram/number10.24/export-controls-digital-weapons>

EDRi-gram: German government intends to use FinFisher Spyware (30.01.2013)
http://edri.org/edrigram/**number11.2/germany-finfisher-**spyware<http://edri.org/edrigram/number11.2/germany-finfisher-spyware>

==============================**==============================**===========
8. Big Brother Awards 2013 Bulgaria
==============================**==============================**===========

EDRi member ISOC Bulgaria and the Access to Information Program organized
the Big Brother Awards for 2012. This year the "winners" are the Council of
Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria - for lack of action in changing the
way special investigative resources (wiretapping) is being used with
regards to data traffic, which should ensure high protection of privacy.

For private companies, the "winner" is Toplofikatsia (Central Heating) for
collecting and processing private data of its customers.

The BBA awards have been given in Bulgaria since 2003, and usually the
worst governmental institution to deal with privacy is either the Council
of Ministers, or the Ministry of Interior. Among private company winners
have been also mobile operators, advertising companies and power
distributing companies.

Details about the Bulgarian Big Brother Awards 2013 (only in Bulgarian,
28.01.2013)
http://bg.bigbrotherawards.org

(Contribution by Veni Markovski - EDRi member ISOC Bulgaria)

==============================**==============================**===========
9. ENDitorial: Licences for Europe and fight club... only one rule
==============================**==============================**===========

There was a moment in November 2012 when even the most cynical observers
of the European Commission were hopeful of an effective reform of
copyright. Commissioner Barnier gave a speech where he demonstrated that
he understood the problems. He explained that “the digital revolution
has not yet lived up to expectations in the European context” and
described some barriers to cross-border access to content as
illegitimate. Finally, the problems had been identified. And recognising
a problem is a first step to solving it.

Then, in December 2012, the Commission was even more explicit. It
explained that the following would be addressed: territoriality in the
Internal Market; harmonisation, limitations and exceptions to copyright
in the digital age; fragmentation of the EU copyright market; and how to
improve effectiveness and efficiency of enforcement while underpinning
its legitimacy in the wider context of copyright reform.

So far, all that has actually happened is the launch of the Commission's
“licences for Europe” initiative. Or rather, the Commission's launched
industry's initiative... or... well, whoever it is that owns it, was
launched. The last line of Commissioner Barnier's speech at the opening
event was very telling. “The ball is in your court,” he said. He didn't
explain who “you” are – the overwhelming majority of participants
(industry lobbyists), the tiny minority of civil society... or society
in general?

Actually, we know that “you” is not society in general. The first rule
of fight club ...”licences for Europe” is... you do not talk about
“licences for Europe”. No web streaming of the working groups, “Chatham
House Rules” that forbid the attribution of statements to particular
participants or their organisations. The public at large is kept firmly
outside of the process. After the lack of transparency that helped bring
down ACTA, we now have closed doors and “Chatham House Rules” for
“licences for Europe”. And no problem definition for the working groups
to work on.

Barnier's subsequent comment that “it is incomprehensible that Europeans
are coming up against obstacles online which they have been dismantling
in the physical world for more than 50 years,” hovers somewhere between
tragedy and comedy. This statement comes from a Commissioner who
inherited a demonstrably failed 2001 Copyright Directive but has not
acted to fix it. This is the Commissioner that inherited a demonstrably
failed 2004 IPR Enforcement Directive, but has not acted to fix it.

After four years of inaction on licensing and four years of inaction on
exceptions and limitations to copyright, Commissioner Barnier demanded
action... by everyone in the room except himself, to “meet together to
find fast, specific solutions to problems arising in the here and now”.
Fast? Faster than what?

So, what now? Well, we will have months of working group meetings,
carefully shielded from the public by the opaque walls of the European
Commission, bringing us closer and closer to the end of this
legislature, at which time Commissioner Barnier can hand over the
dossier to the next incumbent of the “Internal Market” portfolio.
Instead of less red tape and fewer licences, licences “for” Europe are
likely to generate new barriers and new bureaucracy.

For example, one of the working groups is on “user-generated content”.
User-generated content is... well... how can this be explained...? It is
user-generated and should not require licensing. Obviously? In many
European countries, users can generate content that avails of exceptions
to copyright for parody/pastiche, for incidental use, uses of minor
importance etc., without licences. However, none of these exceptions are
mandatory, so there is a lack of harmonisation across Europe caused by a
European Directive which the Commission has no obvious intention of
resolving. So, if harmonisation is not possible by the removal of
licensing obligations in those countries which don't have appropriate
exceptions... what will the “working group” be “working” on? Adding
voluntary “licensing” to remove rights that citizens currently have?

The speech from Commissioner Kroes was not much more inspiring. She said
that she was not “too keen on heavy-handed legislative measures. They
aren't always needed.” This is true. The question is: when you've
already got heavy-handed legislative measures that are not fit for
purpose – do you repeal or reform them, or do you farm the problem out
to an ad hoc collection of industry lobbyists in order to make it seem
that the problem is being solved?

It normally takes at least 9-12 months for the European Parliament to
adopt a legislative text. The next elections are in 15 months. Is there
no hope for a real reform in the next two years?

Licenses for Europe
https://ec.europa.eu/licences-**for-europe-dialogue/en<https://ec.europa.eu/licences-for-europe-dialogue/en>

Commissioner Kroes speech: Digital technology and copyright can fit
together (4.02.2013)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-**release_SPEECH-13-96_en.htm<http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-96_en.htm>

Commissioner Barnier speech: Making European copyright fit for purpose
in the age of internet (7.11.2012)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-**release_SPEECH-12-785_en.htm<http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-785_en.htm>

Commissioner Barnier speech: Licences for Europe: quality content and
new opportunities for all Europeans in the digital era (4.02.2013)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-**release_SPEECH-13-97_en.htm<http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-97_en.htm>

(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)

==============================**==============================**===========
10. Recommended Action: support your privacy rights
==============================**==============================**===========

EDRi together with other civil rights and data protection organisations
launched on 5 February 2013 the European campaign portal
Privacycampaign.eu in support of better protection for European
citizens' rights to privacy and data protection.

“This is our one opportunity to develop a strong legal framework,
building trust and removing unnecessary red tape for business. We need a
framework that is guided by clear, predictable legal principles and
strong enforcement. Instead, we have an unprecedented wave of
ill-informed, ill-advised and destructive corporate lobbying. Democracy
needs to be injected back into this debate in order to protect the
rights of European citizens” says Joe McNamee, Executive Director of
European Digital Rights.

The joint campaign launched by European Digital Rights (representing 32
organisations), Privacy International, The Julia Group, La Quadrature du
Net and Access aims at creating a counterweight to the massive lobbying
by the US government, trade associations and big internet business on
the data protection reform.

The organisations believe that without a successful reform of the data
protection framework European citizens will be left with a series of
legal loopholes and a range of unpredictable enforcement gaps where
nobody, neither citizens nor business, knows what law will be enforced.

The action of the European citizens is even more needed after the recent
news that prove that MEPs in the Internal Market and Consumer Committee
(IMCO) have adopted amendments written by Amazon, eBay or the American
Chamber of Commerce (AmCham EU) – to the detriment of European citizens
and their fundamental rights to privacy and data protection.

Privacy Campaign - European Campaign Portal for the Data Protection Reform<
http://www.privacycampaign.eu/

Lobby groups take CTRL+V of data protection proposal (11.02.2013)
http://edri.org/lobbyplag-**eudatap <http://edri.org/lobbyplag-eudatap>

LobbyPlag
http://www.lobbyplag.eu/

==============================**==============================**===========
11. Recommended Reading
==============================**==============================**===========

EU: Protection of human rights in the EU "rarely a priority", says
Human Rights Watch (02.2013)
http://www.statewatch.org/**news/2013/feb/03hrw-eu-report.**htm<http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/feb/03hrw-eu-report.htm>

EU cyber security directive considered harmful (8.02.2013)
http://www.**lightbluetouchpaper.org/2013/**02/08/eu-cyber-security-**
directive-considered-harmful/<http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2013/02/08/eu-cyber-security-directive-considered-harmful/>

==============================**==============================**===========
12. Agenda
==============================**==============================**===========

14-15 February 2013, Vienna, Austria
Internet 2013 - Shaping policies to advance media freedom
http://www.osce.org/event/**internet2013<http://www.osce.org/event/internet2013>

21-22 February 2013, Washington DC, USA
Intellectual Property and Human Rights Conference and Roundtable Discussion
Webcasted live and archived
http://www.wcl.american.edu/**pijip/go/blog-post/**
intellectual-property-and-**human-rights-conference-and-**
roundtable-discussion<http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/intellectual-property-and-human-rights-conference-and-roundtable-discussion>

22 February 2013, Warsaw, Poland
ePSIplatform Conference: "Gotcha! Getting everyone on board"
http://epsiplatform.eu/**content/save-date-22-february-**
2013-epsiplatform-conference<http://epsiplatform.eu/content/save-date-22-february-2013-epsiplatform-conference>

21-22 March 2013, Malta
Online Privacy: Consenting to your Future
http://www.**onlineprivacyconference.eu/<http://www.onlineprivacyconference.eu/>

6-8 May 2013, Berlin, Germany
re:publica 2013
http://re-publica.de/en/

20-21 June 2013, Lisbon, Portugal
EuroDIG 2013
http://www.eurodig.org/

25-26 June 2013, Barcelona, Spain
9th International Conference on Internet Law & Politics: Big Data:
Challenges and Opportunities.
http://edcp.uoc.edu/symposia/**idp2013/?lang=en<http://edcp.uoc.edu/symposia/idp2013/?lang=en>

25-26 June 2013, Washington, DC, USA
23rd Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference (CFP)
CfP by 1 March 2013
http://www.cfp.org/2013

31 July – 4 August 2013, Geestmerambacht, Netherlands
Observe. Hack. Make. - OHM2013
CfP by 1 March 2013
https://ohm2013.org/

23-26 September 2013, Warsaw, Poland
Public Voice Conference 2013
35th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners conference
http://www.giodo.gov.pl/259/**id_art/762/j/en/<http://www.giodo.gov.pl/259/id_art/762/j/en/>

==============================**==============================
13. About
==============================**==============================

EDRi-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRi has 32 members based or with offices in 20 different
countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active interest in
developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge
and awareness through the EDRi-gram.

All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips
are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and are
visible on the EDRi website.

Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/**licenses/by/3.0/<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/>

Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea <edrigram at edri.org>

Information about EDRi and its members:
http://www.edri.org/

European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in
the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider
making a private donation.
http://www.edri.org/about/**sponsoring<http://www.edri.org/about/sponsoring>
http://flattr.com/thing/**417077/edri-on-Flattr<http://flattr.com/thing/417077/edri-on-Flattr>

- EDRI-gram subscription information

subscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request at edri.org
Subject: subscribe

You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
Unsubscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request at edri.org
Subject: unsubscribe

- EDRI-gram in Macedonian

EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay.
Translations are provided by Metamorphosis
http://www.metamorphosis.org.**mk/mk/vesti/edri<http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/mk/vesti/edri>

- EDRI-gram in German

EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are
provided by Andreas Krisch from the EDRI-member VIBE!AT - Austrian
Association for Internet Users
http://www.unwatched.org/

- Newsletter archive

Back issues are available at:
http://www.edri.org/edrigram

- Help
Please ask <edrigram at edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing
or unsubscribing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/41742049/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 08:31:47 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:31:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <1360927671.16118.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch> <1360927671.16118.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN53U9WqCsWtuXKm9JOJSs02inQz=om6pd0RKGjh4Nuf6A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Everyone,
A good deal of the recent discussion on the list has been concerned in some
way with human rights.
One of the basic of those rights, and surely a very significant one in the
online world, is the right to the freedom to express oneself in one's own
language. The awkward phrase is deliberate - this is also a freedom of
expression issue.
One of the tasks of Internet Governance is to protect this right as well as
to negotiate appropriate means by which all of these diverse voices can be
brought to understand one another.
And one of the first requirements for that understanding is respect for
other languages, willingness to try.
Deirdre


On 15 February 2013 07:27, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  Dear Norbert, ******
> Please do not take it personally, your advise for the establishment of
> separate linguistic groups is not being referred only for the French but
> for all other languages to which the belongs member of the IGC. When we say
> a suitable balanced community representation, that also mean that the
> linguistic diversity is inclusively covered.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Imran****
>
>
>    *From:* Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:17
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
>
> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity?
> > Any thoughts?
>
> Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
> motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
>
> a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
>
> b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
>   users of the Spanish language;
>
> c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
>   community, who able to communicate in English as well as in Spanish,
>   and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf of
>   Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language skills
>   to be able to effectively engage directly
>
> ?
>
> Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
> Caucus", etc.
>
> If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
> followed by other language groups.
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/caf59ddb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Fri Feb 15 09:09:45 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:09:45 -0500
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>

Hi,

Interesting proposal.

Is Spanish the only language we have this issue with?
Or would this be a pilot that could/would be expanded to other languages if it worked well?

One thing, I think that extra time would need to be built into the schedules to handle this.

avri

On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity?
>> Any thoughts?
> 
> Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
> motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
> 
> a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
> 
> b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
>   users of the Spanish language;
> 
> c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
>   community, who able to communicate in English as well as in Spanish,
>   and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf of
>   Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language skills
>   to be able to effectively engage directly
> 
> ?
> 
> Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
> Caucus", etc.
> 
> If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
> followed by other language groups.
> 
> 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 suresh at hserus.net  Fri Feb 15 10:34:34 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:04:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
 <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <13cde7e05dd.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

It also leads to much duplication of work and a gradual disconnect 
between the different forums

One simple workaround would be to have other list members that are 
bilingual in, say Spanish and English, to assist with a translation 
whenever a Spanish email is sent to the group. This could extend to 
other languages civil society is bilingual with, but only in cases 
where the member is not comfortable expressing themselves in English.

If we go beyond that we would have to invest in the services of a 
simultaneous translation agency of the sort that is available in Geneva 
for UN meetings

--srs (htc one x)



On 15 February 2013 7:39:45 PM Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Interesting proposal.
>
> Is Spanish the only language we have this issue with?
> Or would this be a pilot that could/would be expanded to other 
> languages if it worked well?
>
> One thing, I think that extra time would need to be built into the 
> schedules to handle this.
>
> avri
>
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> > Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity?
> >> Any thoughts?
> >
> > Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
> > motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
> >
> > a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
> >
> > b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
> >   users of the Spanish language;
> >
> > c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
> >   community, who able to communicate in English as well as in Spanish,
> >   and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf of
> >   Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language skills
> >   to be able to effectively engage directly
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
> > Caucus", etc.
> >
> > If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
> > followed by other language groups.
> >
> > 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 gpaque at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 10:47:24 2013
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:47:24 -0600
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch> <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CALCecM9LumSTXG68DqYBR2H8Wv5otM76me8kk3FynBPSgoY0yg@mail.gmail.com>

I really appreciate the thought and energy for these ideas. Note that when
we say 'Spanish', we really mean 'non-English', right? We all need to to
try to communicate--it is in our own best interests to understand and to be
understood.

However, there are already excellent discussion spaces for Spanish (other)
-language speakers and issues. I see a, b, and c as a time-consuming
additional list/step which may add distortion to our work. An 'ambassador'
would have a very difficult time expressing the voice of a diverse group.
How would that be different from the input of our current Spanish (and
other) -speaking members?

Does anyone know of another list that has multilingual discussions, or has
found a solution to this problem? How do Spanish (or other) language lists
handle non-Spanish speakers?

When I was on the World Federation of United Nations Associations (WFUNA)
Task Force for WSIS, we had 10 members, speaking 8 languages. We spoke in
English, as our common language, even though the sponsors/organizers were
Danish, and we were funded by the Danish UNA.

Very unfortunately, until automatic translators are better, I think that
for instance, the onus is on me to make myself understood on a Danish
mailing list. I think I must work to understand the intention, as well as
the words. I have also seen that, with few exceptions, well-meaning
questions are answered openly by the members of the list.

I would like to see more discussion on this topic.
Gracias!
Ginger

Ginger (Virginia) Paque

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
**
**


On 15 February 2013 08:09, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Interesting proposal.
>
> Is Spanish the only language we have this issue with?
> Or would this be a pilot that could/would be expanded to other languages
> if it worked well?
>
> One thing, I think that extra time would need to be built into the
> schedules to handle this.
>
> avri
>
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> > Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity?
> >> Any thoughts?
> >
> > Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
> > motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
> >
> > a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
> >
> > b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
> >   users of the Spanish language;
> >
> > c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
> >   community, who able to communicate in English as well as in Spanish,
> >   and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf of
> >   Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language skills
> >   to be able to effectively engage directly
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
> > Caucus", etc.
> >
> > If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
> > followed by other language groups.
> >
> > 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/7deef663/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb 15 10:58:14 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:58:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
	<1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Is Spanish the only language we have this issue with?

Right now it seems to be a particularly urgent specifically with regard
to Spanish, since we have a Spanish-speaking colleague whose interest
in actively participating here in the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
is obviously very great even despite the very substantial language
barrier. 

> Or would this be a pilot that could/would be expanded to other
> languages if it worked well?

That's what I've been thinking, with just a very slight difference of
emphasis in that I wanted to emphasize that creating such Language
Community Caucuses is something that would always be in the hands of
people of that particular language community. That's why I wrote: "If
this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be followed
by other language groups.

> One thing, I think that extra time would need to be built into the
> schedules to handle this.

Yes, absolutely.

Greetings,
Norbert


> On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> > Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an
> >> opportunity? Any thoughts?
> > 
> > Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
> > motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
> > 
> > a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
> > 
> > b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
> >   users of the Spanish language;
> > 
> > c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
> >   community, who able to communicate in English as well as in
> > Spanish, and who would be willing to engage in global fora on
> > behalf of Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English
> > language skills to be able to effectively engage directly
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
> > Caucus", etc.
> > 
> > If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
> > followed by other language groups.
> > 
> > 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 gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 11:05:50 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:05:50 -0800
Subject: [governance] NYT: "Broad Powers Seen for Obama in Cyberstrikes"
Message-ID: <03bb01ce0b96$5a8e53c0$0faafb40$@gmail.com>

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/broad-powers-seen-for-obama-in-cyberstr
ikes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

(Speaking of a "Cold War" in cyberspace... are we racing towards a MAD
situation and do we need a new round of SALT?

MAD-mutually assured destruction 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

SALT-strategic arms limitation talks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks




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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 15 11:21:33 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:21:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLuydu+qtUZSWRVoTGOeOsevpdzNgoES9b_6_nwwkOZkTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch>
	<3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
	<511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net>
	<CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org>
	<20130214105511.45b2852d@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511CB551.1010406@ciroap.org>
	<CAAYFVLuydu+qtUZSWRVoTGOeOsevpdzNgoES9b_6_nwwkOZkTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130215172133.40043370@quill.bollow.ch>

José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos
> poner a la tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos
> emergentes como Latinoámerica y simplemente y sutilmente se los
> negamos.

Obviously we must not do that!!!

José, what do you think about the idea of creating a Spanish Language
Community Caucus, which would not only be a place for discussions by
means of the Spanish language, but which would also select Community
Amabassadors, i.e. people trusted by the community (i.e. the Spanish
speaking people who form the Community Caucus), with good language
skills in both Spanish and English. The Ambassadors who would engage in
the conversations of global governance on behalf of the community that
selected them as their Ambassadors. The Ambassadors would bring the
perspective of their community into global fora and report back to
their community.

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  Fri Feb 15 11:25:03 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:25:03 -0800
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>	<20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>	<1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org> <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>

I suggest that we include Daniel Pimienta in this discussion (I'm copying
this to him although I believe he is on this list...

Daniel has devoted a very considerable amount of time and skill to dealing
with precisely this issue. I'm not clear what the state of the art is but
I'm sure he could tell us.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:58 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Is Spanish the only language we have this issue with?

Right now it seems to be a particularly urgent specifically with regard to
Spanish, since we have a Spanish-speaking colleague whose interest in
actively participating here in the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is
obviously very great even despite the very substantial language barrier. 

> Or would this be a pilot that could/would be expanded to other 
> languages if it worked well?

That's what I've been thinking, with just a very slight difference of
emphasis in that I wanted to emphasize that creating such Language Community
Caucuses is something that would always be in the hands of people of that
particular language community. That's why I wrote: "If this works well,
maybe it'll set a good example that could be followed by other language
groups.

> One thing, I think that extra time would need to be built into the 
> schedules to handle this.

Yes, absolutely.

Greetings,
Norbert


> On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> > Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an 
> >> opportunity? Any thoughts?
> > 
> > Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a 
> > motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
> > 
> > a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
> > 
> > b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
> >   users of the Spanish language;
> > 
> > c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
> >   community, who able to communicate in English as well as in 
> > Spanish, and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf 
> > of Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language 
> > skills to be able to effectively engage directly
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language 
> > Caucus", etc.
> > 
> > If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be 
> > followed by other language groups.
> > 
> > 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 11:17:55 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:17:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] NYT: "Broad Powers Seen for Obama in Cyberstrikes"
In-Reply-To: <03bb01ce0b96$5a8e53c0$0faafb40$@gmail.com>
References: <03bb01ce0b96$5a8e53c0$0faafb40$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <511E5FB3.2000101@gmail.com>


And this 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3zootMY429g#%21> is 
how it operates when it comes to the US rentier class... from letting 
Africans die despite legal rights to copy patents cheaply through to 
keeping the vassals in line by "giving them laws" ... poor New Zeeland...

On 2013/02/15 06:05 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/broad-powers-seen-for-obama-in-cyberstr
> ikes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
>
> (Speaking of a "Cold War" in cyberspace... are we racing towards a MAD
> situation and do we need a new round of SALT?
>
> MAD-mutually assured destruction
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
>
> SALT-strategic arms limitation talks
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/34a9b7b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 11:52:22 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:52:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch> <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
 <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch> <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4=o8H2TcBwqfaNPKwMzjkPkqmO+nrZy0ri_+nap2TC1A@mail.gmail.com>

I look forward to hearing Daniel's response.
There is talk about the net "breaking" in terms of its technological
governance, but it seems to me much more likely that the net will break,
perhaps has already broken, in terms of the human connections which run on
top of the technological ones (and are the purpose of the technology??)
For this reason I would consider the language issue to be crucially
important.
Deirdre

On 15 February 2013 12:25, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I suggest that we include Daniel Pimienta in this discussion (I'm copying
> this to him although I believe he is on this list...
>
> Daniel has devoted a very considerable amount of time and skill to dealing
> with precisely this issue. I'm not clear what the state of the art is but
> I'm sure he could tell us.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:58 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
>
> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> > Is Spanish the only language we have this issue with?
>
> Right now it seems to be a particularly urgent specifically with regard to
> Spanish, since we have a Spanish-speaking colleague whose interest in
> actively participating here in the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is
> obviously very great even despite the very substantial language barrier.
>
> > Or would this be a pilot that could/would be expanded to other
> > languages if it worked well?
>
> That's what I've been thinking, with just a very slight difference of
> emphasis in that I wanted to emphasize that creating such Language
> Community
> Caucuses is something that would always be in the hands of people of that
> particular language community. That's why I wrote: "If this works well,
> maybe it'll set a good example that could be followed by other language
> groups.
>
> > One thing, I think that extra time would need to be built into the
> > schedules to handle this.
>
> Yes, absolutely.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> > On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >
> > > Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an
> > >> opportunity? Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
> > > motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
> > >
> > > a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
> > >
> > > b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
> > >   users of the Spanish language;
> > >
> > > c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
> > >   community, who able to communicate in English as well as in
> > > Spanish, and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf
> > > of Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language
> > > skills to be able to effectively engage directly
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
> > > Caucus", etc.
> > >
> > > If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
> > > followed by other language groups.
> > >
> > > 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/d2ce7315/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pimienta at funredes.org  Fri Feb 15 12:30:23 2013
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:30:23 -0400
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
 <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
 <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>
 <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1U6P3H-00057R-2v@igcaucus.org>

Michael,

>I suggest that we include Daniel Pimienta in this discussion
I do follow some of the exchanges in the list. Not all of them :-) 
but I did with his one.

>Daniel has devoted a very considerable amount of time and skill to dealing
>with precisely this issue. I'm not clear what the state of the art is but
>I'm sure he could tell us.
Certainly.

The state of the art as of today and as of Funredes progresses, (and 
of course limited to "as of my knowledge")
is a platform we have developped for imbedding "aid to mutual 
linguistic inter-comprehension" in a communication system.

We have been using it in 6 projects so far and since 2008  (including 
a first experiment with an FP7 EU project),
and try to keep improving it. We have also set a demo platform in 
http://demogoodle.funredes.org/
to show the impressive power of translating automatically 60 
languages with one keystroke.

We have called it "Goodle"' as the design is to use Moodle as the 
basic platform with the addition by ourselves of  2 functions :
1) moderation (which curiously Moodle does not have)
2) automatic interface to the Google API (which is no more free)  to 
obtain automatic translation in a possible list of some 60 languages.

Why moderation?
It is not a must, but, in a closed profesional virtual community, if 
you really desire quality in translation,
this is the best option. The moderator will obviously not interfere 
with communication (beyond the accepted charter)
but correcting typos, putting upper cases where they belong and 
adding appropriate signs of punctuations, and,
as a limit case, cutting long sentences into several ones, will boost 
the quality of translation in an impressive factor
moving from laughable translations into close to human translation in 
80% of the cases (but always remember this is
NOT translation but only an aid to inter-comprehension).
Using web interface with automatic syntax detection will make the job 
not to harsh and it is worth the effort.
Eventually we could imaginate a version with those functions imbedded 
(although a human eye is proner to avoid mistaken decisions).

Why Moodle?
Because it combines the best of two worlds.
The reception is made as an email with links to the platform in a 
very structured manner.
The writing is made on the web platform.
One huge benefit is that it kills the headache of leaving all the 
threaded messages and offer a clean "ecological" management of communication.

I will answer any question you have beyond this basic description.

Meanwhile who is curious can browse http://cardicis.funredes.org  as 
a real life example
and read the GUIDE FOR AID TO LINGUISTIC INTERCOMPREHENSION
in http://cardicis.funredes.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=124.
Although the experience has shown that very few are the persons (like 
Deirdre) willing to make the effort to write with the
respect to translation in mind (and too often the ones who laugh at 
ugly software translations are the first responsibles, by
their neglected communication, of the bad results!).

Daniel





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


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

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

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

From pimienta at funredes.org  Fri Feb 15 13:12:11 2013
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:12:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <E1U6P3H-00057R-2v@igcaucus.org>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
 <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
 <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>
 <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
 <E1U6P3H-00057R-2v@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <E1U6PiJ-0005nZ-D0@igcaucus.org>

The platform I have shown in the previous mail is the Rolls Royce and 
it implies some costs both one time and fixed.

But we have been experimenting also in the past with more simple ways 
to deal with the language issue, such as:
- imbedding translations behind the email
- organizing parallel lists by languages
- setting the translations in web pages (we did that for African list in WSIS)
- and many combinations (with or without moderation)

But here we must remember that the first thing which is required (as 
in most endeavors) is the political will.


-- 
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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 13:19:44 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:19:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <E1U6PhP-0005gE-DB@igcaucus.org>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch> <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
 <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch> <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
 <E1U6P3H-00057R-2v@igcaucus.org> <E1U6PhP-0005gE-DB@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7G_yffQPOAUhMdZqr7o11X=Y=a5Rtg4ft5d=5QB+LXFw@mail.gmail.com>

And the individual human will.

On 15 February 2013 14:12, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:

> The platform I have shown in the previous mail is the Rolls Royce and it
> implies some costs both one time and fixed.
>
> But we have been experimenting also in the past with more simple ways to
> deal with the language issue, such as:
> - imbedding translations behind the email
> - organizing parallel lists by languages
> - setting the translations in web pages (we did that for African list in
> WSIS)
> - and many combinations (with or without moderation)
>
> But here we must remember that the first thing which is required (as in
> most endeavors) is the political will.
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/6f246c91/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pimienta at funredes.org  Fri Feb 15 13:30:36 2013
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:30:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4=o8H2TcBwqfaNPKwMzjkPkqmO+nrZy0ri_+nap2TC1A@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
 <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
 <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>
 <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4=o8H2TcBwqfaNPKwMzjkPkqmO+nrZy0ri_+nap2TC1A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1U6Q4E-0006OP-P1@igcaucus.org>

At 14:19 15/02/2013, Deirdre wrote:
>And the individual human will.
Well, in a community context, where the 
responsibilities are spread in a horizontal ring,
the political will is the result of the individual wills of the members.  :-)

<http://translate.google.com/?hl=es&tab=wT#es/en/%C2%A1As%C3%AD%20que%20vamos%20por%20adelante%20si%20queremos!>¡Así 
que vamos por adelante si queremos!

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/d30448d2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 13:38:32 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:38:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <E1U6Q3n-0006Js-Sf@igcaucus.org>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch> <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
 <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch> <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4=o8H2TcBwqfaNPKwMzjkPkqmO+nrZy0ri_+nap2TC1A@mail.gmail.com> <E1U6Q3n-0006Js-Sf@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN44OxdgvZUhc0vL5p_y+EPbooi5Q26FyKWU5MWY8Hs_hw@mail.gmail.com>

Si queremos - another example of the need for personal responsibility
towards a public good?

On 15 February 2013 14:30, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:

>  At 14:19 15/02/2013, Deirdre wrote:
>
> And the individual human will.
>
> Well, in a community context, where the responsibilities are spread in a
> horizontal ring,
> the political will is the result of the individual wills of the members.
> :-)
>
>  ¡Así que vamos por adelante si queremos!<http://translate.google.com/?hl=es&tab=wT#es/en/%C2%A1As%C3%AD%20que%20vamos%20por%20adelante%20si%20queremos!>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/5b816976/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 12:48:57 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:48:57 +0000
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN44OxdgvZUhc0vL5p_y+EPbooi5Q26FyKWU5MWY8Hs_hw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 	<20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
 	<1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
 	<20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>
 	<03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
 	<CAMz5XN4=o8H2TcBwqfaNPKwMzjkPkqmO+nrZy0ri_+nap2TC1A@mail.gmail.com>
 	<E1U6Q3n-0006Js-Sf@igcaucus.org>
  <CAMz5XN44OxdgvZUhc0vL5p_y+EPbooi5Q26FyKWU5MWY8Hs_hw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1497159564-1360954159-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1591576518-@b26.c5.bise6.blackberry>

Sorry. My Spanish is lousy. Si quiero makes my point more sensibly :-)
Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel

-----Original Message-----
From: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:38:32 
To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Daniel Pimienta<pimienta at funredes.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]

Si queremos - another example of the need for personal responsibility
towards a public good?

On 15 February 2013 14:30, Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:

>  At 14:19 15/02/2013, Deirdre wrote:
>
> And the individual human will.
>
> Well, in a community context, where the responsibilities are spread in a
> horizontal ring,
> the political will is the result of the individual wills of the members.
> :-)
>
>  ¡Así que vamos por adelante si queremos!<http://translate.google.com/?hl=es&tab=wT#es/en/%C2%A1As%C3%AD%20que%20vamos%20por%20adelante%20si%20queremos!>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/f2b497dd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jfcallo at ciencitec.com  Fri Feb 15 13:52:47 2013
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:52:47 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Sobre_el_espa=C3=B1ol?=
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4=o8H2TcBwqfaNPKwMzjkPkqmO+nrZy0ri_+nap2TC1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
 <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
 <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>
 <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN4=o8H2TcBwqfaNPKwMzjkPkqmO+nrZy0ri_+nap2TC1A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130215135247.16665w0jzvcgj8xr@www.ciencitec.com>

Distinguidos Señores:
Desde que aparecieron los traductores, el problema del idioma, en  
parte ha sido superado, lo mas importante es la actitud, sin una  
actitud positiva por mas manejo exclusivo de uno u otro dioma, nada  
funciona, lo que he sugerido es que se amplie estas discusiones al  
idioma español, asi se lo hecho saber a mi distinguido compatriota  
Jose Felix Arias.
Por favor hay mucho por hacer para Internet y sobretodo en español.
Gracias

English
Distinguished Gentlemen:
 From that came the translators, the language problem in part has been  
overcome, the most important is the attitude, without a positive  
attitude for more exclusive management of either anguage, nothing  
works, what I have suggested is to extend these discussions into  
Spanish, so it made ​​it known to my distinguished compatriot Felix  
Jose Arias.
Please there is much to do to the Internet and especially Spanish.
thanks


José F. Callo Romero
CEO ciencitec.com


Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> escribió:

> I look forward to hearing Daniel's response.
> There is talk about the net "breaking" in terms of its technological
> governance, but it seems to me much more likely that the net will break,
> perhaps has already broken, in terms of the human connections which run on
> top of the technological ones (and are the purpose of the technology??)
> For this reason I would consider the language issue to be crucially
> important.
> Deirdre
>
> On 15 February 2013 12:25, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I suggest that we include Daniel Pimienta in this discussion (I'm copying
>> this to him although I believe he is on this list...
>>
>> Daniel has devoted a very considerable amount of time and skill to dealing
>> with precisely this issue. I'm not clear what the state of the art is but
>> I'm sure he could tell us.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
>> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 7:58 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
>>
>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Is Spanish the only language we have this issue with?
>>
>> Right now it seems to be a particularly urgent specifically with regard to
>> Spanish, since we have a Spanish-speaking colleague whose interest in
>> actively participating here in the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is
>> obviously very great even despite the very substantial language barrier.
>>
>> > Or would this be a pilot that could/would be expanded to other
>> > languages if it worked well?
>>
>> That's what I've been thinking, with just a very slight difference of
>> emphasis in that I wanted to emphasize that creating such Language
>> Community
>> Caucuses is something that would always be in the hands of people of that
>> particular language community. That's why I wrote: "If this works well,
>> maybe it'll set a good example that could be followed by other language
>> groups.
>>
>> > One thing, I think that extra time would need to be built into the
>> > schedules to handle this.
>>
>> Yes, absolutely.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>> > On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> >
>> > > Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an
>> > >> opportunity? Any thoughts?
>> > >
>> > > Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
>> > > motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
>> > >
>> > > a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
>> > >
>> > > b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
>> > >   users of the Spanish language;
>> > >
>> > > c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
>> > >   community, who able to communicate in English as well as in
>> > > Spanish, and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf
>> > > of Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language
>> > > skills to be able to effectively engage directly
>> > >
>> > > ?
>> > >
>> > > Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
>> > > Caucus", etc.
>> > >
>> > > If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
>> > > followed by other language groups.
>> > >
>> > > 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>




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

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

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

From nashton at ccianet.org  Fri Feb 15 15:20:17 2013
From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 21:20:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch> <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <7325114321792878127@unknownmsgid>

FWIW, in At-Large we faced significant language issues, with many
participants with limited English and native Spanish or French
respectively. We tried automatic translation of emails, but it was a pretty
imperfect situation.

Avri is completely correct, if you really want multiple language
communities to have equal opportunity to participate, it takes extra time
and energy (IMHO it is not only worth it but actually a necessity) for
everyone. Many of you here will know how strongly I feel that the dialogue
is richer with everyone in it, even if the linguistic challenges require
patience and extra work to try to overcome.

-- 
Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
Geneva Representative
Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA)
Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430

*Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here:
http://meetme.so/nashton*

Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling.

On 15 Feb 2013, at 15:10, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

Interesting proposal.

Is Spanish the only language we have this issue with?
Or would this be a pilot that could/would be expanded to other languages if
it worked well?

One thing, I think that extra time would need to be built into the
schedules to handle this.

avri

On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:

Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:


How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity?

Any thoughts?


Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a

motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for


a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;


b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically

 users of the Spanish language;


c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"

 community, who able to communicate in English as well as in Spanish,

 and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf of

 Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language skills

 to be able to effectively engage directly


?


Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language

Caucus", etc.


If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be

followed by other language groups.


Greetings,

Norbert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/8fdeaab2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From rudi.vansnick at isoc.be  Fri Feb 15 16:06:29 2013
From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:06:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <7325114321792878127@unknownmsgid>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch> <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org> <7325114321792878127@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <EECD1B9D-FD28-4AE1-B7CC-585A189DBA86@isoc.be>

Language is important, and most often the barrier for people to be engaged and involved thus allowing them to participate in governance and policy matters.
Translation is indeed a solution, however, it is almost impossible to translate all and everything in any language. For instance, as Dutch is my mother tongue I would expect the documents would be translated in Dutch. And so will expect everyone. Mission impossible ... 

Translation in just a few languages is not fair against all other languages. 

Just my 2 cents 

Rudi Vansnick


Op 15-feb-2013, om 21:20 heeft Nick Ashton-Hart het volgende geschreven:

> FWIW, in At-Large we faced significant language issues, with many participants with limited English and native Spanish or French respectively. We tried automatic translation of emails, but it was a pretty imperfect situation.
> 
> Avri is completely correct, if you really want multiple language communities to have equal opportunity to participate, it takes extra time and energy (IMHO it is not only worth it but actually a necessity) for everyone. Many of you here will know how strongly I feel that the dialogue is richer with everyone in it, even if the linguistic challenges require patience and extra work to try to overcome.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
>  
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> Geneva Representative
> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA)
> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 
> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430
> 
> Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton
> 
> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling.
> 
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 15:10, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Interesting proposal.
>> 
>> Is Spanish the only language we have this issue with?
>> Or would this be a pilot that could/would be expanded to other languages if it worked well?
>> 
>> One thing, I think that extra time would need to be built into the schedules to handle this.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> 
>>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity?
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
>>> motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
>>> 
>>> a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
>>> 
>>> b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
>>>  users of the Spanish language;
>>> 
>>> c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
>>>  community, who able to communicate in English as well as in Spanish,
>>>  and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf of
>>>  Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language skills
>>>  to be able to effectively engage directly
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
>>> Caucus", etc.
>>> 
>>> If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
>>> followed by other language groups.
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/fd322abd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 16:11:51 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:11:51 +1200
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
Amendment Poll. Here are the results:

76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
questions, as none of them were compulsory.

On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.

This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which is
excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as
amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions,
elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all
those who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all
those who took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll
and to Jeremy for helping out.

With Kind Regards,
Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)


-- 

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/fa897afa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From devonrb at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 16:28:55 2013
From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:28:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <EECD1B9D-FD28-4AE1-B7CC-585A189DBA86@isoc.be>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
	<1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
	<7325114321792878127@unknownmsgid>
	<EECD1B9D-FD28-4AE1-B7CC-585A189DBA86@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <CAE1T72Sz5h=cdLakfy40j+x+3Yz9ovnQ+u0uLksgpQhMmYkdkQ@mail.gmail.com>

One way of mitigating this is identify those with multianguage skils on the
list and create a datbase with the languages they speak so they become a
clearing house for thse languages which we have dificulty translating.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>wrote:

> Language is important, and most often the barrier for people to be engaged
> and involved thus allowing them to participate in governance and policy
> matters.
> Translation is indeed a solution, however, it is almost impossible to
> translate all and everything in any language. For instance, as Dutch is my
> mother tongue I would expect the documents would be translated in Dutch.
> And so will expect everyone. Mission impossible ...
>
> Translation in just a few languages is not fair against all other
> languages.
>
> Just my 2 cents
>
>   Rudi Vansnick
>
>
> Op 15-feb-2013, om 21:20 heeft Nick Ashton-Hart het volgende geschreven:
>
> FWIW, in At-Large we faced significant language issues, with many
> participants with limited English and native Spanish or French
> respectively. We tried automatic translation of emails, but it was a pretty
> imperfect situation.
>
> Avri is completely correct, if you really want multiple language
> communities to have equal opportunity to participate, it takes extra time
> and energy (IMHO it is not only worth it but actually a necessity) for
> everyone. Many of you here will know how strongly I feel that the dialogue
> is richer with everyone in it, even if the linguistic challenges require
> patience and extra work to try to overcome.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> Geneva Representative
> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA)
> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430
>
> *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here:
> http://meetme.so/nashton*
>
> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic
> mangling.
>
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 15:10, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Interesting proposal.
>
> Is Spanish the only language we have this issue with?
> Or would this be a pilot that could/would be expanded to other languages
> if it worked well?
>
> One thing, I think that extra time would need to be built into the
> schedules to handle this.
>
> avri
>
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:17, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> How can we turn this challenge of communication into an opportunity?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> Maybe this experience of communication problems can serve as a
>
> motivation to create a "Spanish Language Caucus" for
>
>
> a) discussion in Spanish of global information society issues;
>
>
> b) discussion of information society issues concerning specifically
>
>  users of the Spanish language;
>
>
> c) selecting Ambassadors, trusted by the "Spanish Language Caucus"
>
>  community, who able to communicate in English as well as in Spanish,
>
>  and who would be willing to engage in global fora on behalf of
>
>  Spanish speakers who don't have sufficient English language skills
>
>  to be able to effectively engage directly
>
>
> ?
>
>
> Of course the Ambassadors would report back to the "Spanish Language
>
> Caucus", etc.
>
>
> If this works well, maybe it'll set a good example that could be
>
> followed by other language groups.
>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Devon Blake
Special Projects Director
Earthwise Solutions Limited
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/cb01376b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Feb 15 16:59:33 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 08:59:33 +1100
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>

Sala, are you sure?

The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments, because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant charter quote is below.

Amendments to the Charter

This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.



(perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)



Ian Peter  




From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Dear All,

Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter Amendment Poll. Here are the results:

76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.

On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.

This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions, elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to Jeremy for helping out. 

With Kind Regards,
Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)


-- 


Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851






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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/54c22c96/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From pimienta at funredes.org  Fri Feb 15 17:10:12 2013
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:10:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <EECD1B9D-FD28-4AE1-B7CC-585A189DBA86@isoc.be>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
 <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
 <7325114321792878127@unknownmsgid>
 <EECD1B9D-FD28-4AE1-B7CC-585A189DBA86@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <E1U6TQH-0008IY-5d@igcaucus.org>


>Translation in just a few languages is not fair against all other languages.
And then obliging everybody to use a single 
language which is understood by less than 15% of 
world population (see note below)  is fair?

Facts in languages are stubborn but not linear.

Source: http://ethnologue.org/ethno_docs/distribution.asp?by=size
- The 8 more spoken languages cover close to 40% of the world population.
- The 77 more spoken languages cover close to 80% of the world population.
- Most international organizations have set the 
obligation to use a combination of languages for 
debates (European Union, where you live Rudi,
is the most exigeant by law ...although not always complying in the facts :-)).

The use of linguistic intercomprehension (which 
is not, indeed, the same as human translation and 
cannot be expected to be so at a cost
1000 times lower) between say, for example, 
Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, 
Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and...
why not Dutch :-) to make it 10 will probably, at 
a moderate cost, make life easier to a very large 
proportion of the members without
being unfair with the 6000 other existing 
languages ... of which probably less than 15% have a written form.
And to keep precise we are not talking software 
translation of document for which this technic is 
unaceptable (except if human intervene
to fix the product) but only applied to 
communication where flexibility is more acceptable and even wished.

Technology and computing services readyness 
evolve always faster than society readyness...
and we have been having this sort of discussions 
since the 80's while the digital world has change drastically in the period and
will still change more in the coming years.

<http://translate.google.com/?hl=es&tab=wT#fr/en/Au%20plaisir%20de%20voir%20les%20esprits%20%C3%A9voluer...>Au 
plaisir... de voir les esprits évoluer 
:-)<http://translate.google.com/?hl=es&tab=wT#fr/en/Au%20plaisir%20de%20voir%20les%20esprits%20%C3%A9voluer...>.
=================================

Note: this is an estimated the figure for the 
world population capable to meaningfully understand and express in English.
Obviously in highly educated groups (and still 
more in ICT educated groups) this percentage 
could go around 50%... but certainly
not close to 80%. And yes statistics on languages 
are hard to obtain and agree, as definition of "meaningfully" are still quite
subjective (maybe there is a hope with Magnetic 
Resonance Imaging  to see that obstacle solved in the near future!).


-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/4f91f57a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb 15 17:11:30 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:11:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <E1U6P34-00053P-GS@igcaucus.org>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
	<1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
	<20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>
	<03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
	<E1U6P34-00053P-GS@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <20130215231130.02bb2b96@quill.bollow.ch>

Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:

> We have called it "Goodle"' as the design is to use Moodle as the 
> basic platform with the addition by ourselves of  2 functions :
> 1) moderation (which curiously Moodle does not have)
> 2) automatic interface to the Google API (which is no more free)  to 
> obtain automatic translation in a possible list of some 60 languages.

That sounds very very interesting.

Is the "Goodle" software publicly available?

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Fri Feb 15 17:28:02 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:28:02 -0500
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <23F1E660-90BA-48A5-809E-DECB3A2743F7@acm.org>

Hi,

Unfortunately, I beleive Ian is correct.
How many members does IGC have?

The only way charter things get the quorum they need is through constant reminder for people to vote.
None of us did that.

avri

On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:59, Ian Peter wrote:

> Sala, are you sure?
>  
> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments, because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant charter quote is below.
>  
> Amendments to the Charter
> 
> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.
> 
>  
> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
> 
>  
> Ian Peter 
> 
>  
>  
>  
> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>  
> Dear All,
> 
> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
> 
> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.
> 
> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
> 
> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
> 
> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions, elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to Jeremy for helping out. 
> 
> With Kind Regards,
> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>  
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>  
>  
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Fri Feb 15 17:31:19 2013
From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:31:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <20130215231130.02bb2b96@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
 <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
 <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>
 <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
 <E1U6P34-00053P-GS@igcaucus.org>
 <20130215231130.02bb2b96@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <E1U6Tkd-0000U7-Of@igcaucus.org>

Bonsoir Norbert,

>Is the "Goodle" software publicly available?
There is a version accessible thru the open 
source Moodle data base: http://list-o.sourceforge.net/

This version is named LIST-O (from Langues et 
Intercompréhension  Système de Traduction Ouvert)
which can be read as List Open and was developped 
in a project funded by OIF (Organisation 
International de la Francophonie) in 2008.

The project has been evolving since then but not 
yet to the point of a new release.
There are still a list of features I want to see 
added and the team has been slow in absence of funding. 


-- 
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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Feb 15 17:51:35 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:51:35 +1100
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <23F1E660-90BA-48A5-809E-DECB3A2743F7@acm.org>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba> <23F1E660-90BA-48A5-809E-DECB3A2743F7@acm.org>
Message-ID: <0215B8F6DBCB4E45BBCC84C85BAA4702@Toshiba>

but I can't see any reason not to extend the voting period, if it appears 
that we can get the required numbers by doing so and actively chasing up non 
voters...



-----Original Message----- 
From: Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 9:28 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Hi,

Unfortunately, I beleive Ian is correct.
How many members does IGC have?

The only way charter things get the quorum they need is through constant 
reminder for people to vote.
None of us did that.

avri

On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:59, Ian Peter wrote:

> Sala, are you sure?
>
> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required 
> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My 
> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments, 
> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant 
> charter quote is below.
>
> Amendments to the Charter
>
> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten 
> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the 
> members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter 
> are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the 
> charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a 
> member for amending the charter.
>
>
> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>
> Dear All,
>
> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter 
> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>
> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all 
> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>
> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>
> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which 
> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at 
> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter 
> as amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and 
> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>
> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions, 
> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all 
> those who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all 
> those who took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the 
> Poll and to Jeremy for helping out.
>
> With Kind Regards,
> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>
>
> -- 
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t








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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your 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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 18:21:18 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:21:18 -0500
Subject: [governance] Part A Re: [] caucus contribution, consultation
 and MAG meeting
In-Reply-To: <20130215172133.40043370@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <20130212234827.62f9d391@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130213145925.2151be57@quill.bollow.ch> <3F0E4D23-58B8-4741-B4B1-C0D1722C5B20@acm.org>
 <511BC7AC.1090805@itforchange.net> <CACAaNxgX6Bem8Dw_V9r2CV=Ep8HynbXMYQU236GdF3bZL7jXPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <03800F85-046C-429A-88FD-F377630F2633@ciroap.org> <20130214105511.45b2852d@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511CB551.1010406@ciroap.org> <CAAYFVLuydu+qtUZSWRVoTGOeOsevpdzNgoES9b_6_nwwkOZkTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130215172133.40043370@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLuoueBaxn7U56b9NCn0PABGYv+y9zpqMs=SzAZHWk370g@mail.gmail.com>

 I agree

 *Multilingual communities of the IGC*

We are in the midst of a technological revolution, which is the Internet,
where we put the technology of the Internet to serve the emerging towns and
one of the main concerns of the IGC is the multilingual participation of
citizens in all parts of the world.

This governance mechanisms of the multilingual participation in our forums
and the community of the Caucus, said its universality, indivisibility,
interdependence and interrelatedness in accordance with the international
law of human rights.

This new approach will have impact on the countries and governmental
forums, since it will have authority in areas; local, regional, national
and international. Dara impulse and impact of policy support to their
suggestions of a digital governance democratic with a human face and deep
participation

The community of the Caucus must collect and channel the opinions of its
members and interested citizens access to free information as a universal
right, guaranteeing full respect for the democracy of the Internet and the
rule of law to a sustainable development of laws for the benefit of
individuals and their fundamental freedoms.

It should be considered that the design of new technologies, services and
applications, must be resources that lead to the improvement of the rights
and freedoms of persons. Taking as principle that Internet access is a
common, inclusive and interest of affirmation of the freedom of information
and communication. And it is the basis for all subsequent steps of policies
to develop in the affirmation of freedom of information and communication.




*Comunidades Multilingües  del CIG*



Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, que es la Internet, en
donde debemos poner a la tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los
pueblos emergentes y una de las principales preocupaciones del CIG es la de
la participación Multilingüe de los ciudadanos de todas las partes del
mundo.


Este Mecanismos de gobernanza de la participación Multilingüe en nuestros
foros y en la Comunidad del Caucus, afirmara su universalidad,
indivisibilidad, interdependencia e interrelación de conformidad con el
derecho internacional de los derechos humanos.


Este nuevo enfoque tendrá repercusiones en los países y foros
gubernamentales, ya que el mismo tendrá autoridad en los ámbitos; locales,
regionales nacionales e internacionales. Dara impulso y repercusión de
política de respaldo a sus sugerencias de una gobernabilidad digital
democrática con rostro humano y de profunda participación


La Comunidad del Caucus debe de recoger y canalizar las opiniones de sus
miembros y ciudadanos interesados en el acceso a la información libre como
derecho universal, garantizando de esta manera el pleno respeto de la
democracia de la Internet y el estado de derecho a un desarrollo sostenible
de leyes en beneficio de las personas y sus libertades fundamentales.


Debe de considerarse que el diseño de nuevas tecnologías, servicios y
aplicaciones, deben de ser recursos que conduzcan  a la mejora de los
derechos y libertades fundamentales de las personas. Tomando cómo principio
que el acceso a Internet es un interés común, inclusiva y de afirmación de
la libertad de la información y de la comunicación. Y es la base para todos
los pasos posteriores de políticas a desarrollarse en la afirmación de la
libertad de información y comunicación.




*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/15 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>

> José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Estamos en medio de una revolución tecnológica, en donde debemos
> > poner a la tecnología de la Internet al servicio de los pueblos
> > emergentes como Latinoámerica y simplemente y sutilmente se los
> > negamos.
>
> Obviously we must not do that!!!
>
> José, what do you think about the idea of creating a Spanish Language
> Community Caucus, which would not only be a place for discussions by
> means of the Spanish language, but which would also select Community
> Amabassadors, i.e. people trusted by the community (i.e. the Spanish
> speaking people who form the Community Caucus), with good language
> skills in both Spanish and English. The Ambassadors who would engage in
> the conversations of global governance on behalf of the community that
> selected them as their Ambassadors. The Ambassadors would bring the
> perspective of their community into global fora and report back to
> their community.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/7d459db6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb 15 19:15:20 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:15:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <E1U6Tkm-0000Wz-Ma@igcaucus.org>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch>
	<1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org>
	<20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch>
	<03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com>
	<E1U6P34-00053P-GS@igcaucus.org>
	<20130215231130.02bb2b96@quill.bollow.ch>
	<E1U6Tkm-0000Wz-Ma@igcaucus.org>
Message-ID: <20130216011520.54fba1f0@quill.bollow.ch>

Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:

> >Is the "Goodle" software publicly available?
>
> There is a version accessible thru the open 
> source Moodle data base: http://list-o.sourceforge.net/

Sounds very cool - thanks! I've grabbed a copy, and will try it out as
soon as I find some time to do so.

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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 19:19:38 2013
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:19:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <0215B8F6DBCB4E45BBCC84C85BAA4702@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>
	<23F1E660-90BA-48A5-809E-DECB3A2743F7@acm.org>
	<0215B8F6DBCB4E45BBCC84C85BAA4702@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAC0JwGOEJn_aYxgWjEfjDZzpaQkpRhG+=kbyrdbpjYo7oRBECQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1 to extend the voting period.

It was a busy time over the last couple of weeks, and the absence of
reminders didn't help.
On Feb 15, 2013 6:52 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> but I can't see any reason not to extend the voting period, if it appears
> that we can get the required numbers by doing so and actively chasing up
> non voters...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 9:28 AM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately, I beleive Ian is correct.
> How many members does IGC have?
>
> The only way charter things get the quorum they need is through constant
> reminder for people to vote.
> None of us did that.
>
> avri
>
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:59, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>  Sala, are you sure?
>>
>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership
>> required for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>> charter quote is below.
>>
>> Amendments to the Charter
>>
>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
>> members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter
>> are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the
>> charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a
>> member for amending the charter.
>>
>>
>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>
>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-**proposed-charter-amendments<http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments>and the charter as amended is at
>> http://igcaucus.org/charter and http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-**process<http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process>
>> .
>>
>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your
>> contributions, elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank
>> you to all those who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and
>> to all those who took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting
>> the Poll and to Jeremy for helping out.
>>
>> With Kind Regards,
>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**______________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>> ______________________________**______________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**______________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/c05dbd9c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From shailam at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 21:27:05 2013
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
Message-ID: <1360981625.70639.YahooMailMobile@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Thank you for this digestion Ian , I for one would appreciate the extension if voting period. I was traveling and mussed the window !
Shaila 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130215/e3cc050c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 21:46:41 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:46:41 +1200
Subject: [governance] Communication Challenges [Brainstorming]
In-Reply-To: <20130216011520.54fba1f0@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAJwbTiC0VhHab=5W8ROh2ncPtWhPQ3pg9Cf4RGpXS36SERutMQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130215111719.2881de33@quill.bollow.ch> <1F963468-A542-4131-9FDB-A9E2DCB31B9C@acm.org> <20130215165814.27f52b20@quill.bollow.ch> <03ea01ce0b99$108fbb80$31af3280$@gmail.com> <E1U6P34-00053P-GS@igcaucus.org> <20130215231130.02bb2b96@quill.bollow.ch> <E1U6Tkm-0000Wz-Ma@igcaucus.org> <20130216011520.54fba1f0@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <3A51A601-5F78-479E-9350-58A4B8A7A572@gmail.com>

The discussions have been interesting and I hope that more people can share their thoughts on the matter. The 21st of February happens to be International Mother language day, see below.

 

MESSAGE
Français / English
 
 
Message de la Directrice générale de l’UNESCO, Irina Bokova, à l’occasion de Journée internationale de la langue maternelle, 21 février 2013
 
La journée internationale de la langue maternelle est une occasion privilégiée de souligner l’importance des langues pour l'identité des groupes et des individus, au fondement de toute vie sociale, économique et culturelle.

Le multilinguisme est une force et une chance pour l’humanité. Il incarne notre diversité culturelle, il encourage le brassage des points de vue, le renouvellement des idées, l’élargissement de nos imaginaires. Le dialogue authentique passe par le respect des langues, et c’est pourquoi l'UNESCO travaille à promouvoir l’usage des langues comme moteur de compréhension mutuelle. Nous encourageons l’enseignement dans la langue maternelle, qui permet de mieux lutter contre l’analphabétisme et contribue à une éducation de qualité. La protection des langues assure aussi la sauvegarde et la transmission des savoirs rares ou autochtones. Elle peut être le moyen de donner à chacun les moyens de se faire entendre, de se faire respecter, et c’est une force d’inclusion sociale.

Cette année, l’UNESCO a choisi d’explorer les liens qui unissent la langue et le livre. Les livres sont une force de paix et de développement à mettre entre toutes les mains. Ils sont aussi sont des outils essentiels d’expression qui participent à l’enrichissement des langues, tout en gardant les traces de l'évolution des langues au cours du temps. A l’heure des nouvelles technologies, les livres restent des instruments précieux, maniables, résistants, pratiques pour le partage des connaissances, la compréhension mutuelle et l'ouverture au monde. Ils sont des piliers des sociétés du savoir et sont en première ligne de la promotion de la liberté d'expression et de l'éducation pour tous.

La vitalité des langues dépend aussi bien de la parole partagée des locuteurs, que de la production en abondance de matériels pédagogiques et de textes imprimés. Dans certains pays, le manque de livres et de manuels scolaires écrits dans les langues locales constitue un frein au développement, à l’inclusion sociale. C’est aussi de fait une privation élémentaire d’un droit à la liberté d’expression. Les outils numériques permettent parfois de combler ce manque, mais ils ne sauraient suffire, et nous devons tout mettre en œuvre pour assurer la diffusion plus équitable de matériels et de livres que chacun – et surtout les enfants – pourra lire dans la langue de son choix – y compris sa langue maternelle. La mise à disposition de ces ressources est un moyen d’accélérer la réalisation des objectifs de l’Education pour tous d’ici 2015. La traduction est importante au service de cette grande entreprise, en ouvrant des passerelles vers de nouveaux publics.

En cette 14ème journée de la langue maternelle, j’appelle tous les partenaires de l'UNESCO, les auteurs et les enseignants du monde entier, dans les universités, les chaires et les écoles associées, à travailler ensemble pour la reconnaissance de l'importance de la diversité linguistique et culturelle et de l’éducation dans la langue maternelle.

 
- - -

Message from Ms Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, on the occasion of International Mother Language Day, 21 February 2013
International Mother Language Day is an ideal opportunity to highlight the importance of languages to group and individual identity, as the foundation for all social, economic and cultural life.

Multilingualism is a source of strength and opportunity for humanity. It embodies our cultural diversity and encourages the exchange of views, the renewal of ideas and the broadening of our capacity to imagine. Genuine dialogue implies respect for languages, and this is why UNESCO works to harness their power to foster mutual understanding. We encourage teaching in the mother tongue, which facilitates the fight against illiteracy and contributes to the quality of education. The protection of languages ensures also that rare and indigenous knowledge is safeguarded and handed down. By giving each of us the means to make ourselves heard and be respected, this is also a force for social inclusion.

This year, UNESCO has decided to explore the links between languages and books. Books are a force for peace and development that must be placed in the hands of all. They are also crucial tools for expression that help to enrich languages, while recording their changes over time. In this age of new technologies, books remain precious instruments, easy to handle, sturdy and practical for sharing knowledge, mutual understanding and opening the world to all. Books are the pillars of knowledge societies and essential for promoting freedom of expression and education for all.

The vitality of languages depends as much on oral exchange as on the large-scale production of teaching material and printed texts. In some countries, the dearth of books and textbooks in local languages hampers development and social inclusion and represents a violation of the right to freedom of expression. Digital tools can help to fill this gap, but they are not enough. We must do more to distribute materials and books as widely and fairly as possible, so that all people – children above all – can read in the language of their choice, including in their mother tongue. This can also boost progress towards the Education for All goals by 2015. Translation is an important part of this great project, by creating bridges to new readers.

On this 14th International Mother Language Day, I call on all UNESCO’s partners, authors and teachers all over the world, in universities, the UNESCO Chairs and Associated Schools to work together to promote the importance of linguistic and cultural diversity and of education in the mother tongue.

 
 

Read the message in / Lire le message en :
English / Français / Español / Русский / العربية / 中文
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNESCO
7, Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
France
 
Website:
www.unesco.org/new/en/ unesco/about-us/who-we-are/director-general/


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 16, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Daniel Pimienta <pimienta at funredes.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Is the "Goodle" software publicly available?
>> 
>> There is a version accessible thru the open 
>> source Moodle data base: http://list-o.sourceforge.net/
> 
> Sounds very cool - thanks! I've grabbed a copy, and will try it out as
> soon as I find some time to do so.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/c577666d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Feb 16 03:52:38 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:22:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net> <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 14 February 2013 01:26 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> <snip)
> And that sounds like it includes my recent activity, which has been 
> working with interest-based charities, volunteers etc who have a focus 
> on one particular aspect of social justice, human rights and the rule 
> of law: Prevention of violence against women - in particular those who 
> are tracked and harassed via their Internet footprint (commonly on 
> social networking sites).
>
> However, I'm also aware that in order to achieve the goal of 
> protecting women, some people might characterise the techniques 
> involved as forms of selective censorship and attempts to strip away 
> anonymity (in both cases with respect to their attackers).
>
> So not every part of Civil Society necessarily has the same view on 
> core issues such as these.

No, congruity of views in not the test. Working for public interest is. 
Although there can be different and contested notions of public interest 
- and that space of contestation, negotiation and possible resolution/ 
harmonisation is called politics, (No, Suresh, politics is not what you 
think it is. It is a good word, although it, like almost anything else - 
markets for instance, can involve bad/ manipulative practises as well as 
outcomes.)

There is ages old distinction between public interest and private 
interest, including organised private interests, and this distinction 
holds now as ever. Any non-governmental body involved in public interest 
issues/ advocacy is a civil society organisation. In fact I will accept 
a definition broader than the one used by Council of Europe and quoted 
by Norbert. I will include organisation that dont believe in the concept 
of 'social justice', may in fact decry this concept as dangerous to 
people's liberties, (there are so many of them, esp in the US - BTW, 
Milton has said on this list that there is no thing like social justice) 
as long as such organisations truly believe that they are working in the 
larger public interest, and not narrow private interests of defined 
parties. (No, working, say, on disability rights cannot be called as 
working for private interests of defined parties. It is public interest 
work, and 'disabled people' are here to be considered as a distinct 
'public group' and not a private group. Dont have space or time to argue 
the basis of this distinction any further here.)

These distinctions are hallowed norms of democratic public life for 
decades now, if not centuries.... The extent of anti-democratic thought 
that has permeated into many people's conception of what is presented as 
a new political model of multistakeholderism is the reason that many 
progressive groups have begun to look at (such conceptions of) 
multistakeholderism itself with suspicion. It is this kind of normative 
loose-ness - that works for the interests of the more powerful rather 
than the less powerful, for whom democracy is supposed to work) - that 
is multistakeholderism's biggest enemy.


The normative basis and boundaries of and within multistakeholderism, 
and its relationship with democracy, have to saved, as well as expounded 
very clearly, for  it to be seriously considered as a form / system of 
participatory democracy. (If that is what MSism really is in the minds 
of its proponents.)

In the end, when such discussions as this one takes place, I can hardly 
ever stop myself from re(quoting) the father of free market thinking, 
Adam Smith, who said...

        "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for
        merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a
        conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise
        prices…. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same
        trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing
        to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary. "


        "To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always
        the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or
        regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always
        to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be
        adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not
        only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious
        attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is
        never exactly the same with that of the public, who have
        generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public,
        and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and
        oppressed it."



What a profanity it is to utter something like this in any 
multistakeholder environment... nay, it now seems it may be inadmissible 
even within a IG related CS group.... Adam Smith I understand may have 
been unceremoniously evicted from such spaces. Poor guy - and he thought 
he was trying to make (or mark) market thinking and economic-logic as a/ 
the premier force in our social systems.

parminder






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/80113391/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Sat Feb 16 05:18:22 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:18:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Obama Takes Swipe At Patent Trolls In Call For Further
 Reform
Message-ID: <511F5CEE.8060402@gmail.com>

Meanwhile low patent quality persists.... and New Zeelanders would know 
about honest brokering on these issues...


    Obama Takes Swipe At Patent Trolls In Call For Further Reform

Published on 15 February 2013 @ 11:43 pm

Print This Post 
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/02/15/obama-takes-swipe-at-patent-trolls-in-call-for-further-reform/print/> 
Print This Post 
<http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/02/15/obama-takes-swipe-at-patent-trolls-in-call-for-further-reform/print/> 


By Kelly Burke <http://www.ip-watch.org/author/kburke/> for Intellectual 
Property Watch

US President Obama took aim yesterday at so-called patent trolls and 
said that further US patent reform is needed. He also called for a 
continued focus on protection of IP rights, but signalled a need for 
balance with openness.

"They don't actually produce anything themselves," President Obama said 
when asked about problem of "patent trolls," which are also referred to 
as non-practicing patent-holding entities. "They are essentially trying 
to leverage and hijack somebody else's idea and see if they can extort 
some money out of them." Some have raised questions about the basis for 
criticism of non-practising entities.

President Obama, during a virtual Google+ fireside "hangout", fielded 
questions on a variety of topics before turning his attention to 
intellectual property policies affecting the US. He praised his 
administration's progress in ongoing patent reform but noted legislative 
shortcomings, saying "it hasn't captured all the problems."

"Our efforts at patent reform only went halfway to the point where they 
need to go," he said.

President Obama closed out the topic by advocating for a balance between 
protection and internet freedom.

"I'm an ardent believer that what's powerful about the internet is its 
openness and its capacity for people to get out there and introduce a 
new idea with low barriers to entry," he said. *"We also want to make 
sure that people's intellectual property is protected and whether it's 
how we're dealing with copyright, how we're dealing with patents, how 
we're dealing with piracy issues. What we've tried to do is be an honest 
broker between the various stakeholders and to continue to refine it, 
hopefully keeping up with the technology, which doesn't mean that there 
aren't occasionally going to be some problems that we still haven't 
identified and have to keep on working on."*

Watch the full video here. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp_zigxMS-Y>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/753a294d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: printer_famfamfam.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1035 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/753a294d/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Sat Feb 16 06:17:13 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:17:13 +1200
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ian and All,

You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
mine.

As such, we currently have two options and they are:-

*Option 1*
Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
results of the votes.

*Option 2*
Re-run the votes


If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh
votes or extend the votes.

In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.

For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:

76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
questions, as none of them were compulsory.

On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.

Thank you and Kind Regards,
Sala

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Sala, are you sure?
>
> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required
> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
> charter quote is below.
>
>
> *Amendments to the Charter*
>
> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
> members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter
> are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the
> charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a
> member for amending the charter.
>
>
>
> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>  *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>
> Dear All,
>
> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>
> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>
> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>
> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter
> as amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>
> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions,
> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all
> those who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all
> those who took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll
> and to Jeremy for helping out.
>
> With Kind Regards,
> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>
>
> --
>
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828 <%2B679%203544828>
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/4de32f40/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Feb 16 08:38:14 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:38:14 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <511F48D6.3050506 at itforchange.net>, at 14:22:38 on Sat, 16 
Feb 2013, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>> And that sounds like it includes my recent activity, which has been 
>>working with interest-based charities, volunteers etc who have a focus 
>>on one particular aspect of social justice, human rights and the rule 
>>of law: Prevention of violence against women - in particular those who 
>>are tracked and harassed via their Internet footprint (commonly on 
>>social networking sites).
>>
>> However, I'm also aware that in order to achieve the goal of 
>>protecting women, some people might characterise the techniques 
>>involved as forms of selective censorship and attempts to strip away 
>>anonymity (in both cases with respect to their attackers).
>>
>> So not every part of Civil Society necessarily has the same view on 
>>core issues such as these.
>
>No, congruity of views in not the test. Working for public interest is. 
>Although there can be different and contested notions of public 
>interest - and that space of contestation, negotiation and possible 
>resolution/ harmonisation is called politics

Unfortunately we don't always have "joined-up politics", so while there 
might be [there is] a political consensus to introduce a law in the UK 
to combat stalking (of which cyber-stalking is the fastest growing), 
nothing has been done to telecoms law to make it easier to gather 
evidence, especially cross-border.

So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker and 
stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil society) 
have not yet been resolved.
-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Sat Feb 16 08:45:50 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:45:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
	<882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
	<5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
	<20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
	<0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
	<20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
	<20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
	<DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
	<20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
	<edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
	<3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Roland Perry
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker and
> stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil society) have
> not yet been resolved.

IMO the appropriate place for such conflicts between conflicting
legitimate concerns to be resolved is national parliaments and the
corresponding polititical processes.

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  Sat Feb 16 08:56:42 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:26:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <511F901A.3010301@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 16 February 2013 07:08 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> <snip>
> Unfortunately we don't always have "joined-up politics", so while 
> there might be [there is] a political consensus to introduce a law in 
> the UK to combat stalking (of which cyber-stalking is the fastest 
> growing), nothing has been done to telecoms law to make it easier to 
> gather evidence, especially cross-border.
>
> So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker and 
> stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil society) 
> have not yet been resolved.

I am not sure if I understand you when you say stalkers are civil 
society. So they kind of present their claim and right to be stalkers....


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

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Feb 16 09:17:15 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:17:15 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <rGWTjYYrT5HRFADV@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ at mail.gmail.com>, at 
14:45:50 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>> So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker and
>> stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil society) have
>> not yet been resolved.
>
>IMO the appropriate place for such conflicts between conflicting
>legitimate concerns to be resolved is national parliaments and the
>corresponding polititical processes.

But some of the remedies can only be applied at a global level (eg 
traceability via WHOIS records, or from international "cloud" service 
providers).
-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Feb 16 09:24:22 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:24:22 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <511F901A.3010301@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F901A.3010301@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5W5XX3ZWa5HRFAhS@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <511F901A.3010301 at itforchange.net>, at 19:26:42 on Sat, 16 
Feb 2013, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes

>> So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker 
>>and  stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil 
>>society)  have not yet been resolved.
>
>I am not sure if I understand you when you say stalkers are civil 
>society.

Stalkers would no doubt align themselves with that part of civil society 
which values anonymity and free speech (which are both good when used 
for the good, but can also be used for the bad).

Most stalkers are ex-partners and other members of the public with a 
grudge; not "private sector", or "government", or "trade associations", 
or "academia" nor any other recognised 'stakeholder group', and can 
therefore only be members of "civil society".

(Or are they allowed to be outside of such discussions, as a 
non-stakeholder?)

As you didn't mention them, can I assume you agree that the victims are 
members of Civil Society?
-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Feb 16 09:38:31 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:08:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <rGWTjYYrT5HRFADV@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
 <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <rGWTjYYrT5HRFADV@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Both resolve only to an IP address, which despite working party 19 
claims should not be considered personal data

--srs (htc one x)



On 16 February 2013 7:47:15 PM Roland Perry 
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message
> <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ at mail.gmail.com>, at
> 14:45:50 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
> >> So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker and
> >> stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil society) have
> >> not yet been resolved.
> >
> >IMO the appropriate place for such conflicts between conflicting
> >legitimate concerns to be resolved is national parliaments and the
> >corresponding polititical processes.
>
> But some of the remedies can only be applied at a global level (eg
> traceability via WHOIS records, or from international "cloud" service
> providers).
> --
> Roland Perry
>



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

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Feb 16 11:25:58 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:25:58 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <rGWTjYYrT5HRFADV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <maJQUThWM7HRFADR@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at 
20:08:31 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
writes
>Both resolve only to an IP address, which despite working party 19 
>claims should not be considered personal data

It's not about 100% unambiguous personal data, it's finding the 
perpetrator.

Most are what we call "loners", so an IP address is often sufficient, 
although in practice knowing the real name behind a social media account 
is usually good enough (when people set up the account, or their WHOIS, 
they generally didn't realise they should lie about their name, address, 
phone number etc just in case they became a fugitive later).

And the ones who aren't "loners" may also narrow the suspects down to 
(eg) a household with a man and wife and their 5 year old child. At that 
point it's usually obvious which of them is the perpetrator.

ps IP Addresses are often enough personal data that all processing of 
them should be *treated as if* they are personal data. In other words, 
protected by law (with relevant exceptions for prosecuting offenders) 
even when it turns out they are ambiguous.

>On 16 February 2013 7:47:15 PM Roland Perry 
><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> In message
>> <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ at mail.gmail.com>, at
>> 14:45:50 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>> >> So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker and
>> >> stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil society) have
>> >> not yet been resolved.
>> >
>> >IMO the appropriate place for such conflicts between conflicting
>> >legitimate concerns to be resolved is national parliaments and the
>> >corresponding polititical processes.
>>
>> But some of the remedies can only be applied at a global level (eg
>> traceability via WHOIS records, or from international "cloud" service
>> providers).
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Feb 16 12:52:11 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:52:11 -0800
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <511F901A.3010301@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F901A.3010301@it
 forchange.net>
Message-ID: <00ef01ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>

To be a wee bit philosophical here... We should probably be talking about those who are "in" CS (as for example, as a descriptive category for those not in government, business etc.etc.) in contrast with those who are "of" CS (i.e. those who have ascribed themselves or could be ascribed to sharing/advocating in support of some set of normative principles/values associated with CS...

In this determination, "stalkers" could be seen as "in" CS without necessarily be "of" CS (unless there was a grouping supporting "stalker rights" as part of a large CS rights and principles initiative :)

M 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 5:57 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting)


On Saturday 16 February 2013 07:08 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> <snip>
> Unfortunately we don't always have "joined-up politics", so while 
> there might be [there is] a political consensus to introduce a law in 
> the UK to combat stalking (of which cyber-stalking is the fastest 
> growing), nothing has been done to telecoms law to make it easier to 
> gather evidence, especially cross-border.
>
> So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker and 
> stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil society) 
> have not yet been resolved.

I am not sure if I understand you when you say stalkers are civil society. So they kind of present their claim and right to be stalkers....




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

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

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

From apisan at unam.mx  Sat Feb 16 13:53:56 2013
From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:53:56 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>,<511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCAB5D9@W8-EX10MB.unam.local>

carry on! slice and dice until you're alone! you'll be at the top of the hill. Much of a top but not much of a hill.

leave any claim to diversity and any chance for tech-knowledge based input by the wayside.

What a waste of Roland's, Suresh's and McTim's good will, honesty and energy expense.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico



+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Enviado el: sábado, 16 de febrero de 2013 02:52
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Asunto: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting)


On Thursday 14 February 2013 01:26 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
<snip)
And that sounds like it includes my recent activity, which has been working with interest-based charities, volunteers etc who have a focus on one particular aspect of social justice, human rights and the rule of law: Prevention of violence against women - in particular those who are tracked and harassed via their Internet footprint (commonly on social networking sites).

However, I'm also aware that in order to achieve the goal of protecting women, some people might characterise the techniques involved as forms of selective censorship and attempts to strip away anonymity (in both cases with respect to their attackers).

So not every part of Civil Society necessarily has the same view on core issues such as these.

No, congruity of views in not the test. Working for public interest is. Although there can be different and contested notions of public interest - and that space of contestation, negotiation and possible resolution/ harmonisation is called politics, (No, Suresh, politics is not what you think it is. It is a good word, although it, like almost anything else - markets for instance, can involve bad/ manipulative practises as well as outcomes.)

There is ages old distinction between public interest and private interest, including organised private interests, and this distinction holds now as ever. Any non-governmental body involved in public interest issues/ advocacy is a civil society organisation. In fact I will accept a definition broader than the one used by Council of Europe and quoted by Norbert. I will include organisation that dont believe in the concept of 'social justice', may in fact decry this concept as dangerous to people's liberties, (there are so many of them, esp in the US - BTW, Milton has said on this list that there is no thing like social justice) as long as such organisations truly believe that they are working in the larger public interest, and not narrow private interests of defined parties. (No, working, say, on disability rights cannot be called as working for private interests of defined parties. It is public interest work, and 'disabled people' are here to be considered as a distinct 'public group' and not a private group. Dont have space or time to argue the basis of this distinction any further here.)

These distinctions are hallowed norms of democratic public life for decades now, if not centuries.... The extent of anti-democratic thought that has permeated into many people's conception of what is presented as a new political model of multistakeholderism is the reason that many progressive groups have begun to look at (such conceptions of) multistakeholderism itself with suspicion. It is this kind of normative loose-ness - that works for the interests of the more powerful rather than the less powerful, for whom democracy is supposed to work) - that is multistakeholderism's biggest enemy.


The normative basis and boundaries of and within multistakeholderism, and its relationship with democracy, have to saved, as well as expounded very clearly, for  it to be seriously considered as a form / system of participatory democracy. (If that is what MSism really is in the minds of its proponents.)

In the end, when such discussions as this one takes place, I can hardly ever stop myself from re(quoting) the father of free market thinking, Adam Smith, who said...


"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices…. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary. "


"To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."


What a profanity it is to utter something like this in any multistakeholder environment... nay, it now seems it may be inadmissible even within a IG related CS group.... Adam Smith I understand may have been unceremoniously evicted from such spaces. Poor guy - and he thought he was trying to make (or mark) market thinking and economic-logic as a/ the premier force in our social systems.

parminder






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/0986b0cf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Feb 16 14:13:17 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:13:17 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <00ef01ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F901A.3010301@itforchange.net>
 <00ef01ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Bv$J5atNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <00ef01ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>, at 09:52:11 on 
Sat, 16 Feb 2013, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes
>To be a wee bit philosophical here... We should probably be talking about those who are "in" CS (as for example, as a descriptive category for
>those not in government, business etc.etc.) in contrast with those who are "of" CS (i.e. those who have ascribed themselves or could be
>ascribed to sharing/advocating in support of some set of normative principles/values associated with CS...
>
>In this determination, "stalkers" could be seen as "in" CS without necessarily be "of" CS (unless there was a grouping supporting "stalker
>rights" as part of a large CS rights and principles initiative :)

I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but how does it 
work in practice?

Recently a contributor here who is "in" a trade association was in 
effect accused of being inextricably "of" that trade association 
(although he very plausibly denied it).

On the other hand, we all know about the professional difficulty 
Government employees have with trying to express "a personal view" 
divorced from their day-job.

The group of people I'm trying to place somewhere within the eco-system 
are those "in" civil society who have been affected by "something bad 
happening on the Internet". Do they have to join some sort of lobbying 
group in order to become "of" something, and is that something within 
Civil Society, or one of the other stakeholder groups (if the latter, 
which...)?
-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Feb 16 14:18:16 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 06:18:16 +1100
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com><FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba> <CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba>

Hi Sala, 

How many votes short are we of a positive result?

That would determine perhaps the best way to go.

In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote to get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of the reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of the ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)

So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted to do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders. 

Ian

From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
To: Ian Peter 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Dear Ian and All,

You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is mine. 

As such, we currently have two options and they are:-

Option 1
Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the results of the votes.

Option 2
Re-run the votes


If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh votes or extend the votes.

In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.

For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:

76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.

On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.

Thank you and Kind Regards,
Sala


On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

  Sala, are you sure?

  The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments, because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant charter quote is below.

  Amendments to the Charter

  This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.



  (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)



  Ian Peter  




  From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro 
  Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
  To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
  Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

  Dear All,

  Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter Amendment Poll. Here are the results:

  76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.

  On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
  On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
  On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
  On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.

  This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.

  I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions, elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to Jeremy for helping out. 

  With Kind Regards,
  Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)


  -- 


  Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
  P.O. Box 17862
  Suva
  Fiji

  Twitter: @SalanietaT
  Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
  Tel: +679 3544828
  Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851





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

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

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




-- 

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851






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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/5f0d3090/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Feb 16 14:27:36 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:27:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>
	<CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com>

Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.

But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
vote.

Adam


On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Hi Sala,
>
> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>
> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>
> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote to
> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of the
> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that
> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of the
> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>
> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted to
> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>
> Ian
>
> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
> To: Ian Peter
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>
> Dear Ian and All,
>
> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
> mine.
>
> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>
> Option 1
> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
> results of the votes.
>
> Option 2
> Re-run the votes
>
>
> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
> voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh votes
> or extend the votes.
>
> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>
> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>
> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>
> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>
> Thank you and Kind Regards,
> Sala
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sala, are you sure?
>>
>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required
>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>> charter quote is below.
>>
>>
>> Amendments to the Charter
>>
>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members
>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based
>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
>> amending the charter.
>>
>>
>>
>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>
>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as
>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>>
>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions,
>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those
>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who
>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>
>> With Kind Regards,
>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 16 14:35:23 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 06:35:23 +1100
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com><FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba><CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com><5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba> <CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>

sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the 
existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes 
count, rather than running the whole process again.

Ian

-----Original Message----- 
From: Adam Peake
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.

But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
vote.

Adam


On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Hi Sala,
>
> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>
> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>
> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote 
> to
> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of 
> the
> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that
> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of 
> the
> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>
> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted 
> to
> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>
> Ian
>
> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
> To: Ian Peter
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>
> Dear Ian and All,
>
> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
> mine.
>
> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>
> Option 1
> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
> results of the votes.
>
> Option 2
> Re-run the votes
>
>
> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
> voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh 
> votes
> or extend the votes.
>
> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>
> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>
> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>
> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>
> Thank you and Kind Regards,
> Sala
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sala, are you sure?
>>
>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership 
>> required
>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>> charter quote is below.
>>
>>
>> Amendments to the Charter
>>
>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the 
>> members
>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are 
>> based
>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
>> amending the charter.
>>
>>
>>
>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>
>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter 
>> as
>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>>
>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your 
>> contributions,
>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all 
>> those
>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those 
>> who
>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>
>> With Kind Regards,
>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 


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

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

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

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Sat Feb 16 14:44:23 2013
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:44:23 +0500
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>
	<CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba>
	<CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com>
	<D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtOK1V3P-8PrLdM4P6B9Ra7Hm1zkdEeM1OKANCf=+BmO+g@mail.gmail.com>

IGC can do a quick round of wake-up and vote call! JaaGo and Vote
(means wakeup and vote in my language) for those that have yet not
voted at all. Since the numbers for all those that voted is there, one
can do the match with the confirmed membership list. Anyways, I
support Ian's recommendation....JaaGo!

best

Fouad

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the
> existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes
> count, rather than running the whole process again.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>
> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
>
> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
> vote.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sala,
>>
>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>>
>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>>
>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote
>> to
>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of
>> the
>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that
>> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of
>> the
>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>>
>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted
>> to
>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>> To: Ian Peter
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>
>> Dear Ian and All,
>>
>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
>> mine.
>>
>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>>
>> Option 1
>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
>> results of the votes.
>>
>> Option 2
>> Re-run the votes
>>
>>
>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
>> voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh
>> votes
>> or extend the votes.
>>
>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>>
>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>>
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>
>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>> Sala
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>>
>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership
>>> required
>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>>> charter quote is below.
>>>
>>>
>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>>
>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
>>> members
>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are
>>> based
>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
>>> amending the charter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>>
>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>
>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>
>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter
>>> as
>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>>>
>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your
>>> contributions,
>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all
>>> those
>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those
>>> who
>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>>
>>> With Kind Regards,
>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>>
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sat Feb 16 14:56:17 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:56:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com><FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba><CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com><5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba> <CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com> <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CE812073-A273-4EEF-ACF3-5CF3D276E02C@acm.org>

Hi,

Ian, I really really want to agree with you.

Unfortunately Adam is right, we don't want to set a precedent for the rerunning of a vote whenever we don't get the vote we want.  People might not be voting because they don't care or even because they don't agree.

I think that if the IGC wishes to re-vote, it should be able to decide to do so.  I think calling for a discussion on that and perhaps the substance of the amendment might be a better process to go through.  And if we do go to vote again, we should plan on a longer period and should work with the co-cordinators to make sure we get out enough votes.  I am not even sure most of the voters understood the quorum requirement. 

Had the co-cordinators decided to lengthen the ballot before knowing the vote because they saw we were not reaching 'quorum,' I would have applauded their attention to the details and supported the lengthened call.  Since that did not happen, I really do not support continuing the vote, though I do think it is reasonable to discuss a re-vote in the IGC, see if there is consensus on a re-vote and open up the proposed amendment for more discussion.  For myself, I know in my vote there was one amendment I did not understand well enough to be  either for or against.  Perhaps I am not alone.

avri



On 16 Feb 2013, at 14:35, Ian Peter wrote:

> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes count, rather than running the whole process again.
> 
> Ian
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
> 
> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
> 
> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
> vote.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sala,
>> 
>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>> 
>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>> 
>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote to
>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of the
>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that
>> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of the
>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>> 
>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted to
>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>> 
>> Ian
>> 
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>> To: Ian Peter
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>> 
>> Dear Ian and All,
>> 
>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
>> mine.
>> 
>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>> 
>> Option 1
>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
>> results of the votes.
>> 
>> Option 2
>> Re-run the votes
>> 
>> 
>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
>> voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh votes
>> or extend the votes.
>> 
>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>> 
>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>> 
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>> 
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>> 
>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>> Sala
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>> 
>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required
>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>>> charter quote is below.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>> 
>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members
>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based
>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
>>> amending the charter.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ian Peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>> 
>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>> 
>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>> 
>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as
>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>>> 
>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions,
>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those
>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who
>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>> 
>>> With Kind Regards,
>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>> 
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>> 
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Feb 16 15:14:17 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 12:14:17 -0800
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <Bv$J5atNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F901A.3010301@it
 forchange.net> <00ef01
	ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com> <Bv$J5atNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com>

My own opinion on this would be that folks such as you are describing would
in fact need to become somewhat pro-active to be "of" civil society --
whether they joined a specific group would depend on the circumstances. But
if they were concerned that certain norms were being expressed (for example
anti-stalking) or that normative based actions (anti-stalking measures) were
being proceeded with they would probably need to become part of some "group"
or other. However, the specifics of that "becoming part of" or of those
particular "groups" would vary dramatically all the way from "likes" on a
Facebook group to joining issue based organizations/demo's etc.etc.

As for the person from the industry group... as I understood it, he was
arguing that as a citizen he was "in" civil society at least for part of his
personal "situationalization" (grr... not a good word but I can't think of
another at the moment...

The question of his being "of" civil society really came down to whether
there was a personal normative alignment with his articulation of, and
identification with his corporate interests (wearing his corporate
situationalization hat) or with his "interests" as a citizen, wearing
another hat. 

Personally, at this point I would see whether someone was able and willing
to, for example, sign on to the normative (and programmatic) positions as
articulated by CS in WSIS 2003 and WSIS 2005 as a reasonable indication of
whether they were in alignment with CS in the IG space i.e. whether they
were "of" CS in the IG space. If yes, "yes", if no, "no"... (and for the
record, I see updating and adapting those normative (and programmatic
positions) as being the primary mission for CS going forward at least to
WSIS 2015).

Others may (and very likely will) want to develop their own normative
position going forward toward WSIS 2015 (without an initial agreement to
align themselves with CS WSIS 2003 and 2005) or whatever, and they may also
choose to call their postioning as CS, and who is to stop them; but for the
purposes of my own activities in this area that is how I will look to
proceed.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:13 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
consultation and MAG meeting)

In message <00ef01ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>, at 09:52:11 on Sat,
16 Feb 2013, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes
>To be a wee bit philosophical here... We should probably be talking 
>about those who are "in" CS (as for example, as a descriptive category 
>for those not in government, business etc.etc.) in contrast with those who
are "of" CS (i.e. those who have ascribed themselves or could be ascribed to
sharing/advocating in support of some set of normative principles/values
associated with CS...
>
>In this determination, "stalkers" could be seen as "in" CS without 
>necessarily be "of" CS (unless there was a grouping supporting "stalker 
>rights" as part of a large CS rights and principles initiative :)

I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but how does it work in
practice?

Recently a contributor here who is "in" a trade association was in effect
accused of being inextricably "of" that trade association (although he very
plausibly denied it).

On the other hand, we all know about the professional difficulty Government
employees have with trying to express "a personal view" 
divorced from their day-job.

The group of people I'm trying to place somewhere within the eco-system are
those "in" civil society who have been affected by "something bad happening
on the Internet". Do they have to join some sort of lobbying group in order
to become "of" something, and is that something within Civil Society, or one
of the other stakeholder groups (if the latter, which...)?
--
Roland Perry



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

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

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

From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Sat Feb 16 15:36:49 2013
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:36:49 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <CE812073-A273-4EEF-ACF3-5CF3D276E02C@acm.org>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com><FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba><CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com><5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba> <CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com> <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba> <CE812073-A273-4EEF-ACF3-5CF3D276E02C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <FE8EB7E2-71DF-4EDF-A23C-DBBB0C9FBD5B@post.harvard.edu>

Let me concur, that 'not getting the vote we want' simply cannot be  
grounds used by a valid democracy.  As much as the sound reasons for  
taking steps, toward a different outcome, are also appreciated fully.

Hence, there will be some workable path.

David


On Feb 16, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Ian, I really really want to agree with you.
>
> Unfortunately Adam is right, we don't want to set a precedent for  
> the rerunning of a vote whenever we don't get the vote we want.   
> People might not be voting because they don't care or even because  
> they don't agree.
>
> I think that if the IGC wishes to re-vote, it should be able to  
> decide to do so.  I think calling for a discussion on that and  
> perhaps the substance of the amendment might be a better process to  
> go through.  And if we do go to vote again, we should plan on a  
> longer period and should work with the co-cordinators to make sure  
> we get out enough votes.  I am not even sure most of the voters  
> understood the quorum requirement.
>
> Had the co-cordinators decided to lengthen the ballot before knowing  
> the vote because they saw we were not reaching 'quorum,' I would  
> have applauded their attention to the details and supported the  
> lengthened call.  Since that did not happen, I really do not support  
> continuing the vote, though I do think it is reasonable to discuss a  
> re-vote in the IGC, see if there is consensus on a re-vote and open  
> up the proposed amendment for more discussion.  For myself, I know  
> in my vote there was one amendment I did not understand well enough  
> to be  either for or against.  Perhaps I am not alone.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2013, at 14:35, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting  
>> the existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers  
>> of votes count, rather than running the whole process again.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
>> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>
>> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
>>
>> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
>> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
>> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
>> vote.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Sala,
>>>
>>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>>>
>>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>>>
>>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening  
>>> the vote to
>>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in  
>>> favour of the
>>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a  
>>> technicality that
>>> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on  
>>> any of the
>>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>>>
>>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent  
>>> voted to
>>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>>> To: Ian Peter
>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>
>>> Dear Ian and All,
>>>
>>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the  
>>> mistake is
>>> mine.
>>>
>>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>>>
>>> Option 1
>>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on  
>>> the
>>> results of the votes.
>>>
>>> Option 2
>>> Re-run the votes
>>>
>>>
>>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for  
>>> extending
>>> voting periods for other things that require voting including  
>>> coordinator
>>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast  
>>> fresh votes
>>> or extend the votes.
>>>
>>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the  
>>> website
>>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>>>
>>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>>>
>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not  
>>> answer all
>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>
>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>
>>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>>> Sala
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter  
>>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>>>
>>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership  
>>>> required
>>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter  
>>>> amendments,
>>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The  
>>>> relevant
>>>> charter quote is below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>>>
>>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer  
>>>> than ten
>>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of  
>>>> the members
>>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter  
>>>> are based
>>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the  
>>>> charter,
>>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a  
>>>> member for
>>>> amending the charter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>>>
>>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not  
>>>> answer all
>>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>>
>>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>>
>>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80%  
>>>> approval, which
>>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is  
>>>> found at
>>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the  
>>>> charter as
>>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>>>>
>>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your  
>>>> contributions,
>>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you  
>>>> to all those
>>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all  
>>>> those who
>>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll  
>>>> and to
>>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>>>
>>>> With Kind Regards,
>>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>> Suva
>>>> Fiji
>>>>
>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>>
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Sat Feb 16 15:59:42 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 07:59:42 +1100
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <CE812073-A273-4EEF-ACF3-5CF3D276E02C@acm.org>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com><FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba><CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com><5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba> <CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com> <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba> <CE812073-A273-4EEF-ACF3-5CF3D276E02C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <145B87175D794D19B65C3C2CDFDEEF16@Toshiba>

Avri, yes, I think it's difficult and was trying to find a shortcut.

I will go along with whatever the co coordinators decide, but it seems to me 
that if we are going to follow the letter of the law and not re-open the 
ballot, the only valid decision is that the vote was lost. That means going 
back to the start again, gathering support for amendments, getting a list 
together, getting a new ballot together etc. I can't see why when all the 
amendments have failed according to a strict interpretation of the rules, we 
could really take any shortcuts and ask us to vote on them again without 
full process. If we really think a shortcut is desirable, given the strong 
support among those who did vote, I think re-opening to those who havent 
voted yet is a more desirable path.

But perhaps there are no shortcuts which are acceptable, and we have to 
start again. In that case it might be better to wait a few months on 
questions of charter amendment discussions, as there are some busy months 
ahead between now and June with various policy issues and meetings.

Ian

-----Original Message----- 
From: Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:56 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Hi,

Ian, I really really want to agree with you.

Unfortunately Adam is right, we don't want to set a precedent for the 
rerunning of a vote whenever we don't get the vote we want.  People might 
not be voting because they don't care or even because they don't agree.

I think that if the IGC wishes to re-vote, it should be able to decide to do 
so.  I think calling for a discussion on that and perhaps the substance of 
the amendment might be a better process to go through.  And if we do go to 
vote again, we should plan on a longer period and should work with the 
co-cordinators to make sure we get out enough votes.  I am not even sure 
most of the voters understood the quorum requirement.

Had the co-cordinators decided to lengthen the ballot before knowing the 
vote because they saw we were not reaching 'quorum,' I would have applauded 
their attention to the details and supported the lengthened call.  Since 
that did not happen, I really do not support continuing the vote, though I 
do think it is reasonable to discuss a re-vote in the IGC, see if there is 
consensus on a re-vote and open up the proposed amendment for more 
discussion.  For myself, I know in my vote there was one amendment I did not 
understand well enough to be  either for or against.  Perhaps I am not 
alone.

avri



On 16 Feb 2013, at 14:35, Ian Peter wrote:

> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the 
> existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes 
> count, rather than running the whole process again.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>
> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
>
> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
> vote.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sala,
>>
>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>>
>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>>
>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote 
>> to
>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of 
>> the
>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality 
>> that
>> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of 
>> the
>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>>
>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted 
>> to
>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>> To: Ian Peter
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>
>> Dear Ian and All,
>>
>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
>> mine.
>>
>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>>
>> Option 1
>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
>> results of the votes.
>>
>> Option 2
>> Re-run the votes
>>
>>
>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
>> voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh 
>> votes
>> or extend the votes.
>>
>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the 
>> website
>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>>
>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>>
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>
>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>> Sala
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>>
>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership 
>>> required
>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>>> charter quote is below.
>>>
>>>
>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>>
>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the 
>>> members
>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are 
>>> based
>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
>>> amending the charter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>>
>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>
>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>
>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found 
>>> at
>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter 
>>> as
>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>>>
>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your 
>>> contributions,
>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all 
>>> those
>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those 
>>> who
>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>>
>>> With Kind Regards,
>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>>
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t








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

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

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


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

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Sat Feb 16 16:16:31 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:16:31 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <Bv$J5atNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <WKHcwQzvc$HRFAEp@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com>, at 12:14:17 on 
Sat, 16 Feb 2013, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes
>My own opinion on this would be that folks such as you are describing would
>in fact need to become somewhat pro-active to be "of" civil society --
>whether they joined a specific group would depend on the circumstances. But
>if they were concerned that certain norms were being expressed (for example
>anti-stalking) or that normative based actions (anti-stalking measures) were
>being proceeded with they would probably need to become part of some "group"
>or other.

There are at least three anti-stalking charities in the UK and all were 
started by victims (or their families). The one you might have heard of 
is the Suzy Lamplaugh Trust.

I'm a little unusual in that my contribution to the anti-stalking effort 
is not as a result of direct personal experience, but rather an 
appreciation of how "online" has a dark side as well as the liberating 
influence so many rightly applaud.

>However, the specifics of that "becoming part of" or of those
>particular "groups" would vary dramatically all the way from "likes" on a
>Facebook group to joining issue based organizations/demo's etc.etc.

Where on such a scale do the more conventional Civil Society 
participants of this list place themselves?

>As for the person from the industry group... as I understood it, he was
>arguing that as a citizen he was "in" civil society

More than that, by being engaged with the issues and having an opinion.

-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From shailam at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 16 17:15:53 2013
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
Message-ID: <1361052953.29782.YahooMailMobile@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

There must be many members who would vote but may have missed the deadline. I must admit that whilst traveling it is pretty hard to unravel the exact email with the voting link and remember the deadline.  As a suggestion we could re send the voting email  a few times with appropriate "Jaago" in the subject matter. And with deadline !
Secondly  I m also wondering how many of our members are simply "dormant" members or even plain " Looky loos" ( those that just look on ) does this mean that we are to remain immobilised by their non voting, simply because we have a two third rule ? Which two thirds do we really count ? In a general election of course we only count those that voted. No account is taken of the non voters ? Imagine the chaos ensuing were this the case. So the question remains who are our true members and how many? 
Regards
Shaila 
Sent from I phone. Apologies !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/d4391c91/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sat Feb 16 17:59:43 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:59:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <1361052953.29782.YahooMailMobile@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1361052953.29782.YahooMailMobile@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <FB093159-82B6-40B9-8AEA-1007DC717D74@acm.org>

Hi,

Hi,

I think it is 2/3 of the voters in the recent election.  Formally speaking, membership is defined by: 

http://igcaucus.org/charter

"
This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.
"

This also means that to some extent, they do pay attention.

avri

On 16 Feb 2013, at 17:15, shaila mistry wrote:

> There must be many members who would vote but may have missed the deadline. I must admit that whilst traveling it is pretty hard to unravel the exact email with the voting link and remember the deadline. As a suggestion we could re send the voting email a few times with appropriate "Jaago" in the subject matter. And with deadline !
> Secondly I m also wondering how many of our members are simply "dormant" members or even plain " Looky loos" ( those that just look on ) does this mean that we are to remain immobilised by their non voting, simply because we have a two third rule ? Which two thirds do we really count ? In a general election of course we only count those that voted. No account is taken of the non voters ? Imagine the chaos ensuing were this the case. So the question remains who are our true members and how many? 
> Regards
> Shaila 
> Sent from I phone. Apologies !
> 
> From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>; 
> To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>; 
> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>; 
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll 
> Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 7:27:36 PM 
> 
> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
> 
> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
> vote.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> > Hi Sala,
> >
> > How many votes short are we of a positive result?
> >
> > That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
> >
> > In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote to
> > get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of the
> > reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that
> > we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of the
> > ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
> >
> > So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted to
> > do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
> > To: Ian Peter
> > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
> >
> > Dear Ian and All,
> >
> > You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
> > mine.
> >
> > As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
> >
> > Option 1
> > Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
> > results of the votes.
> >
> > Option 2
> > Re-run the votes
> >
> >
> > If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
> > voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
> > elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh votes
> > or extend the votes.
> >
> > In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
> > will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
> >
> > For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
> >
> > 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
> > questions, as none of them were compulsory.
> >
> > On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> > On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> > On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> > On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
> >
> > Thank you and Kind Regards,
> > Sala
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sala, are you sure?
> >>
> >> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required
> >> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
> >> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
> >> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
> >> charter quote is below.
> >>
> >>
> >> Amendments to the Charter
> >>
> >> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
> >> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members
> >> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based
> >> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
> >> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
> >> amending the charter.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ian Peter
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
> >> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
> >>
> >> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
> >> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
> >>
> >> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> >> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> >> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> >> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
> >>
> >> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
> >> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
> >> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as
> >> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
> >> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
> >>
> >> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions,
> >> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those
> >> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who
> >> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
> >> Jeremy for helping out.
> >>
> >> With Kind Regards,
> >> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> >> P.O. Box 17862
> >> Suva
> >> Fiji
> >>
> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> Tel: +679 3544828
> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> > P.O. Box 17862
> > Suva
> > Fiji
> >
> > Twitter: @SalanietaT
> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > Tel: +679 3544828
> > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Sat Feb 16 19:26:34 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:26:34 +0100
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <CE812073-A273-4EEF-ACF3-5CF3D276E02C@acm.org>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>
	<CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba>
	<CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com>
	<D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>
	<CE812073-A273-4EEF-ACF3-5CF3D276E02C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130217012634.36664088@quill.bollow.ch>

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I am not even sure most of the voters understood the quorum
> requirement. 

Given that no-one expressed concern about whether the quorum would be
reached, or invested any effort into reminding people to vote, I'd
say that definitely at least to the proponents of the amendment
proposals and to the co-coordinator this was not clear enough.  

Really something has gone wrong here in that we as a group have only
realized after the poll has ended that we have this tough quorum rule
here.

Clearly one requirement for a properly conducted poll is that there
should not be this kind of surprise about the rules after the poll has
ended.

The question is, what is the appropriate way to recover?

Throwing all the work of the amendment proposers away is IMO not an
appropriate response.

Perhaps we should declare the charter amendments poll *invalid* on the
basis that the rules that the interpretation of the poll result would
be subject to co-coordinators had failed quorum rule had not been
understood and announced in advance?

Then it would be justifiable to repeat the poll, and doing that is not
a precedent for "redo the polling process until we get a result that we
like", but rather an example of "declare invalid that which was not
done in a valid manner, and then do it in a valid manner".

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  Sat Feb 16 19:32:34 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:32:34 -0800
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <20130217012634.36664088@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>	<FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>	<CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com>	<5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba>	<CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com>	<D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>	<CE812073-A273-4EEF-ACF3-5CF3D276E02C@acm.org> <20130217012634.36664088@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <027d01ce0ca6$4f7e6130$ee7b2390$@gmail.com>

+1

M

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 4:27 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I am not even sure most of the voters understood the quorum 
> requirement.

Given that no-one expressed concern about whether the quorum would be
reached, or invested any effort into reminding people to vote, I'd say that
definitely at least to the proponents of the amendment proposals and to the
co-coordinator this was not clear enough.  

Really something has gone wrong here in that we as a group have only
realized after the poll has ended that we have this tough quorum rule here.

Clearly one requirement for a properly conducted poll is that there should
not be this kind of surprise about the rules after the poll has ended.

The question is, what is the appropriate way to recover?

Throwing all the work of the amendment proposers away is IMO not an
appropriate response.

Perhaps we should declare the charter amendments poll *invalid* on the basis
that the rules that the interpretation of the poll result would be subject
to co-coordinators had failed quorum rule had not been understood and
announced in advance?

Then it would be justifiable to repeat the poll, and doing that is not a
precedent for "redo the polling process until we get a result that we like",
but rather an example of "declare invalid that which was not done in a valid
manner, and then do it in a valid manner".

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  Sat Feb 16 19:34:29 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:34:29 +1200
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba> <CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com> <5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <384A1133-A6FD-4346-8DC5-8C2D327C9F65@gmail.com>

As per the last elections, we have 127 members who participated in the coordinator elections and as per the Charter, they are deemed as members and eligible to vote. Two thirds of 127 would be around 84. 

The votes in favor do not meet this requirement under the Charter.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:18 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Hi Sala,
>  
> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>  
> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>  
> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote to get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of the reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of the ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>  
> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted to do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>  
> Ian
>  
> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
> To: Ian Peter
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>  
> Dear Ian and All,
> 
> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is mine. 
> 
> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
> 
> Option 1
> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the results of the votes.
> 
> Option 2
> Re-run the votes
> 
> 
> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh votes or extend the votes.
> 
> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
> 
> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
> 
> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.
> 
> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
> 
> Thank you and Kind Regards,
> Sala
> 
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Sala, are you sure?
>>  
>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments, because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant charter quote is below.
>>  
>> Amendments to the Charter
>> 
>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Ian Peter 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>  
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>> 
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>> 
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>> 
>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>> 
>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions, elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to Jeremy for helping out. 
>> 
>> With Kind Regards,
>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>  
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>  
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>  
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/90b6dbcb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Feb 16 22:13:19 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:43:19 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCAB5D9@W8-EX10MB.unam.local>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <510DEC97.4010607@itforchange.net>
 <882F166C-541B-48BD-8FCD-FEF8A088ACF4@acm.org>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
 <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>,<511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCAB5D9@W8-EX10MB.unam.local>
Message-ID: <13ce6242d55.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

That term progressive, in the 'right' hands seems to produce, as 
parminder himself says, a distrust of multistakeholder processes, and I 
personally can't think of anything more regressive.

So please, I know where the term originally came from, but avoiding 
repurposing a much older English word to mean something entirely 
different would be a very good thing indeed.

Has it ever been considered that the opposition to this brand of 
politics (a focus on control of words, terms and if possible governance 
structures) as opposed to policy, comes more from people who work on 
the ground, hands on, in multistakeholder groups on whatever cause?

In such a case, it may then be quite arguable which side is actually 
representing public interest, or whether there can be one true 
perception of such interest on more nuanced topics. So, that test fails 
if you try to seek positive proof, rather than 'negative'

--srs (htc one x)



On 17 February 2013 12:23:56 AM "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" 
<apisan at unam.mx> wrote:
> carry on! slice and dice until you're alone! you'll be at the top of 
> the hill. Much of a top but not much of a hill.
>
> leave any claim to diversity and any chance for tech-knowledge based 
> input by the wayside.
>
> What a waste of Roland's, Suresh's and McTim's good will, honesty and 
> energy expense.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Facultad de Química UNAM
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
>
>
> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>
> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, 
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>
> ________________________________
> Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder 
> [parminder at itforchange.net]
> Enviado el: sábado, 16 de febrero de 2013 02:52
> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Asunto: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution, 
> consultation and MAG meeting)
>
>
> On Thursday 14 February 2013 01:26 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> <snip)
> And that sounds like it includes my recent activity, which has been 
> working with interest-based charities, volunteers etc who have a focus 
> on one particular aspect of social justice, human rights and the rule 
> of law: Prevention of violence against women - in particular those who 
> are tracked and harassed via their Internet footprint (commonly on 
> social networking sites).
>
> However, I'm also aware that in order to achieve the goal of protecting 
> women, some people might characterise the techniques involved as forms 
> of selective censorship and attempts to strip away anonymity (in both 
> cases with respect to their attackers).
>
> So not every part of Civil Society necessarily has the same view on 
> core issues such as these.
>
> No, congruity of views in not the test. Working for public interest is. 
> Although there can be different and contested notions of public 
> interest - and that space of contestation, negotiation and possible 
> resolution/ harmonisation is called politics, (No, Suresh, politics is 
> not what you think it is. It is a good word, although it, like almost 
> anything else - markets for instance, can involve bad/ manipulative 
> practises as well as outcomes.)
>
> There is ages old distinction between public interest and private 
> interest, including organised private interests, and this distinction 
> holds now as ever. Any non-governmental body involved in public 
> interest issues/ advocacy is a civil society organisation. In fact I 
> will accept a definition broader than the one used by Council of Europe 
> and quoted by Norbert. I will include organisation that dont believe in 
> the concept of 'social justice', may in fact decry this concept as 
> dangerous to people's liberties, (there are so many of them, esp in the 
> US - BTW, Milton has said on this list that there is no thing like 
> social justice) as long as such organisations truly believe that they 
> are working in the larger public interest, and not narrow private 
> interests of defined parties. (No, working, say, on disability rights 
> cannot be called as working for private interests of defined parties. 
> It is public interest work, and 'disabled people' are here to be 
> considered as a distinct 'public group' and not a private group. Dont 
> have space or time to argue the basis of this distinction any further here.)
>
> These distinctions are hallowed norms of democratic public life for 
> decades now, if not centuries.... The extent of anti-democratic thought 
> that has permeated into many people's conception of what is presented 
> as a new political model of multistakeholderism is the reason that many 
> progressive groups have begun to look at (such conceptions of) 
> multistakeholderism itself with suspicion. It is this kind of normative 
> loose-ness - that works for the interests of the more powerful rather 
> than the less powerful, for whom democracy is supposed to work) - that 
> is multistakeholderism's biggest enemy.
>
>
> The normative basis and boundaries of and within multistakeholderism, 
> and its relationship with democracy, have to saved, as well as 
> expounded very clearly, for  it to be seriously considered as a form / 
> system of participatory democracy. (If that is what MSism really is in 
> the minds of its proponents.)
>
> In the end, when such discussions as this one takes place, I can hardly 
> ever stop myself from re(quoting) the father of free market thinking, 
> Adam Smith, who said...
>
>
> "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and 
> diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the 
> public, or in some contrivance to raise prices…. But though the law 
> cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling 
> together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much 
> less to render them necessary. "
>
>
> "To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the 
> interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of 
> commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to 
> with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having 
> been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, 
> but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, 
> whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who 
> have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and 
> who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
>
>
> What a profanity it is to utter something like this in any 
> multistakeholder environment... nay, it now seems it may be 
> inadmissible even within a IG related CS group.... Adam Smith I 
> understand may have been unceremoniously evicted from such spaces. Poor 
> guy - and he thought he was trying to make (or mark) market thinking 
> and economic-logic as a/ the premier force in our social systems.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/4f3d67a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Feb 16 22:14:55 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:44:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com><FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba><CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com><5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba>
 <CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com>
 <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <13ce6259fc1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

+1, and a list of those who haven't voted yet should receive a fresh 
link to the poll

--srs (htc one x)



On 17 February 2013 1:05:23 AM "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the
> existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes
> count, rather than running the whole process again.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>
> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
>
> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
> vote.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> > Hi Sala,
> >
> > How many votes short are we of a positive result?
> >
> > That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
> >
> > In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote
> > to
> > get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of
> > the
> > reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that
> > we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of
> > the
> > ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
> >
> > So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted
> > to
> > do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
> > To: Ian Peter
> > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
> >
> > Dear Ian and All,
> >
> > You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
> > mine.
> >
> > As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
> >
> > Option 1
> > Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
> > results of the votes.
> >
> > Option 2
> > Re-run the votes
> >
> >
> > If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
> > voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
> > elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh
> > votes
> > or extend the votes.
> >
> > In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
> > will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
> >
> > For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
> >
> > 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
> > questions, as none of them were compulsory.
> >
> > On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> > On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> > On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> > On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
> >
> > Thank you and Kind Regards,
> > Sala
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sala, are you sure?
> >>
> >> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership
> >> required
> >> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
> >> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
> >> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
> >> charter quote is below.
> >>
> >>
> >> Amendments to the Charter
> >>
> >> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
> >> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
> >> members
> >> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are
> >> based
> >> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
> >> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
> >> amending the charter.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ian Peter
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
> >> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
> >>
> >> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
> >> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
> >>
> >> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> >> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> >> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> >> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
> >>
> >> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
> >> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
> >> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter
> >> as
> >> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
> >> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
> >>
> >> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your
> >> contributions,
> >> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all
> >> those
> >> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those
> >> who
> >> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
> >> Jeremy for helping out.
> >>
> >> With Kind Regards,
> >> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> >> P.O. Box 17862
> >> Suva
> >> Fiji
> >>
> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> Tel: +679 3544828
> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> > P.O. Box 17862
> > Suva
> > Fiji
> >
> > Twitter: @SalanietaT
> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > Tel: +679 3544828
> > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
>
>



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to 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 Feb 16 22:18:16 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:48:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
 <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F901A.3010301@itforchange.net>
 <00ef01
 ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>
 <Bv$J5atNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13ce628ad13.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

In my case, my activism so far has been on good antispam laws and on 
public / isp education on Internet security. Here, funnily enough, my 
interests and views are actually congruent to the interests and views 
of my current and past employers on a number of occasions. Though I 
obviously leave my work affiliation behind me when I participate 
anywhere in my personal capacity

--srs (htc one x)



On 17 February 2013 1:44:17 AM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> My own opinion on this would be that folks such as you are describing would
> in fact need to become somewhat pro-active to be "of" civil society --
> whether they joined a specific group would depend on the circumstances. But
> if they were concerned that certain norms were being expressed (for example
> anti-stalking) or that normative based actions (anti-stalking measures) were
> being proceeded with they would probably need to become part of some "group"
> or other. However, the specifics of that "becoming part of" or of those
> particular "groups" would vary dramatically all the way from "likes" on a
> Facebook group to joining issue based organizations/demo's etc.etc.
>
> As for the person from the industry group... as I understood it, he was
> arguing that as a citizen he was "in" civil society at least for part of his
> personal "situationalization" (grr... not a good word but I can't think of
> another at the moment...
>
> The question of his being "of" civil society really came down to whether
> there was a personal normative alignment with his articulation of, and
> identification with his corporate interests (wearing his corporate
> situationalization hat) or with his "interests" as a citizen, wearing
> another hat.
>
> Personally, at this point I would see whether someone was able and willing
> to, for example, sign on to the normative (and programmatic) positions as
> articulated by CS in WSIS 2003 and WSIS 2005 as a reasonable indication of
> whether they were in alignment with CS in the IG space i.e. whether they
> were "of" CS in the IG space. If yes, "yes", if no, "no"... (and for the
> record, I see updating and adapting those normative (and programmatic
> positions) as being the primary mission for CS going forward at least to
> WSIS 2015).
>
> Others may (and very likely will) want to develop their own normative
> position going forward toward WSIS 2015 (without an initial agreement to
> align themselves with CS WSIS 2003 and 2005) or whatever, and they may also
> choose to call their postioning as CS, and who is to stop them; but for the
> purposes of my own activities in this area that is how I will look to
> proceed.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:13 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
> consultation and MAG meeting)
>
> In message <00ef01ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>, at 09:52:11 on Sat,
> 16 Feb 2013, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes
> >To be a wee bit philosophical here... We should probably be talking
> >about those who are "in" CS (as for example, as a descriptive category
> >for those not in government, business etc.etc.) in contrast with those who
> are "of" CS (i.e. those who have ascribed themselves or could be ascribed to
> sharing/advocating in support of some set of normative principles/values
> associated with CS...
> >
> >In this determination, "stalkers" could be seen as "in" CS without
> >necessarily be "of" CS (unless there was a grouping supporting "stalker
> >rights" as part of a large CS rights and principles initiative :)
>
> I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but how does it work in
> practice?
>
> Recently a contributor here who is "in" a trade association was in effect
> accused of being inextricably "of" that trade association (although he very
> plausibly denied it).
>
> On the other hand, we all know about the professional difficulty Government
> employees have with trying to express "a personal view"
> divorced from their day-job.
>
> The group of people I'm trying to place somewhere within the eco-system are
> those "in" civil society who have been affected by "something bad happening
> on the Internet". Do they have to join some sort of lobbying group in order
> to become "of" something, and is that something within Civil Society, or one
> of the other stakeholder groups (if the latter, which...)?
> --
> Roland Perry
>
>
>



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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Feb 16 22:25:09 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 08:55:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <maJQUThWM7HRFADR@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
 <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <rGWTjYYrT5HRFADV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <maJQUThWM7HRFADR@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <13ce62efbc4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

The ambiguity starts when you need to tie an IP to an actual customers 
name which you can only do after a subpoena from law enforcement

--srs (htc one x)



On 16 February 2013 9:55:58 PM Roland Perry 
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message
> <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at
> 20:08:31 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> writes
> >Both resolve only to an IP address, which despite working party 19
> >claims should not be considered personal data
>
> It's not about 100% unambiguous personal data, it's finding the
> perpetrator.
>
> Most are what we call "loners", so an IP address is often sufficient,
> although in practice knowing the real name behind a social media account
> is usually good enough (when people set up the account, or their WHOIS,
> they generally didn't realise they should lie about their name, address,
> phone number etc just in case they became a fugitive later).
>
> And the ones who aren't "loners" may also narrow the suspects down to
> (eg) a household with a man and wife and their 5 year old child. At that
> point it's usually obvious which of them is the perpetrator.
>
> ps IP Addresses are often enough personal data that all processing of
> them should be *treated as if* they are personal data. In other words,
> protected by law (with relevant exceptions for prosecuting offenders)
> even when it turns out they are ambiguous.
>
> >On 16 February 2013 7:47:15 PM Roland Perry
> ><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ at mail.gmail.com>, at
> >> 14:45:50 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
> >> >> So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker and
> >> >> stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil 
> society) have
> >> >> not yet been resolved.
> >> >
> >> >IMO the appropriate place for such conflicts between conflicting
> >> >legitimate concerns to be resolved is national parliaments and the
> >> >corresponding polititical processes.
> >>
> >> But some of the remedies can only be applied at a global level (eg
> >> traceability via WHOIS records, or from international "cloud" service
> >> providers).
> >> --
> >> Roland Perry
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> >For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> --
> Roland Perry
>



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

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 16 22:33:14 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:33:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <1361052953.29782.YahooMailMobile@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1361052953.29782.YahooMailMobile@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1361071994.64043.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Dear Shaila, 
You review comments a very valid and important for the conflict
management of current situation.
a. Even if the "Jaago" or "Wake-up" call was
not initiated, the discussion of the survey poll and voting options were in the
discussion, so rare chance that someone missed to read it.
b.
I agree that there may be some "active members" who participated in
discussion, or in voting however, there are "some other members" who
are only "observers". But keeping in mind that Charter provisioning
and segregation of for the observer who just affirm their membership when a
voting poll is circulated, but the voting for amendment is only related to the
Voters of the last election.
c. Have any one observed any complaint from
the voting members that s/he missed to cast vote in given the time period?, if
yes, how many they are? In this case, IGC Coordinators may be requested to find
out the actual reason and to compensate them. 
Regards
Imran
Ahmed Shah


>________________________________
> From: shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>Cc: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 3:15
>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>  
>There must be many members who would vote but may have missed the deadline. I must admit that whilst traveling it is pretty hard to unravel the exact email with the voting link and remember the deadline.  As a suggestion we could re send the voting email  a few times with appropriate "Jaago" in the subject matter. And with deadline !Secondly  I m also wondering how many of our members are simply "dormant" members or even plain " Looky loos" ( those that just look on ) does this mean that we are to remain immobilised by their non voting, simply because we have a two third rule ? Which two thirds do we really count ? In a general election of course we only count those that voted. No account is taken of the non voters ? Imagine the chaos ensuing were this the case. So the question remains who are our true members and how many? RegardsShaila Sent from I phone. Apologies !  
> 
>
>________________________________
> From:  Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>; 
>To:  <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>; 
>Cc:  Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>; 
>Subject:  Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll 
>Sent:  Sat, Feb 16, 2013 7:27:36 PM 
>  
>Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
>
>But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
>result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
>time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
>vote.
>
>Adam
>
>
>On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sala,
>>
>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>>
>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>>
>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote to
>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of the
>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that
>> we have not
 had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of the
>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>>
>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted to
>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>> To: Ian Peter
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>
>> Dear Ian and All,
>>
>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
>> mine.
>>
>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>>
>> Option 1
>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
>> results of the
 votes.
>>
>> Option 2
>> Re-run the votes
>>
>>
>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
>> voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh votes
>> or extend the votes.
>>
>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>>
>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>>
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On
 proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>
>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>> Sala
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>>
>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required
>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>>> charter quote is below.
>>>
>>>
>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>>
>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
 members
>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based
>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
>>> amending the charter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>> Amendment Poll.
 Here are the results:
>>>
>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>
>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>
>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as
>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>>>
>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions,
>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those
>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who
>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>>
>>> With Kind Regards,
>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>>
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998
 2851
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>        ____________________________________________________________You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.igcaucus.orgTo be removed from the list, visit:    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribingFor all other list information and functions, see:    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governanceTo edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:    http://www.igcaucus.org/Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/af6c91a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Feb 16 22:39:38 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:39:38 -0800
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <13ce628ad13.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F901A.3010301@it
 forchange.net> <00ef01
	 ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com> <Bv$J5atNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com> <017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com> <13ce628ad13.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <001401ce0cc0$71233530$53699f90$@gmail.com>

Suresh, I'm not the CS police or any sort of arbiter but FWIW to my mind
simply saying that you "support good antispam laws and on public / isp
education on Internet security" doesn't really make it "civil society"... 

The question is what are the underlying values/public interest that you are
trying to achieve with or through "good antispam laws and on public / isp
education on Internet security".  

It seems to me that achieving increased corporate efficiencies (and thus
corporate profits) is as, or more likely the "interest" that is driving
your/your employers actions as anything to do with enhancing the public
good.

M 

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] 
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 7:18 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Roland Perry'
Subject: RE: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
consultation and MAG meeting)

In my case, my activism so far has been on good antispam laws and on public
/ isp education on Internet security. Here, funnily enough, my interests and
views are actually congruent to the interests and views of my current and
past employers on a number of occasions. Though I obviously leave my work
affiliation behind me when I participate anywhere in my personal capacity

--srs (htc one x)



On 17 February 2013 1:44:17 AM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
> My own opinion on this would be that folks such as you are describing 
> would in fact need to become somewhat pro-active to be "of" civil 
> society -- whether they joined a specific group would depend on the 
> circumstances. But if they were concerned that certain norms were 
> being expressed (for example
> anti-stalking) or that normative based actions (anti-stalking 
> measures) were being proceeded with they would probably need to become
part of some "group"
> or other. However, the specifics of that "becoming part of" or of 
> those particular "groups" would vary dramatically all the way from 
> "likes" on a Facebook group to joining issue based organizations/demo's
etc.etc.
>
> As for the person from the industry group... as I understood it, he 
> was arguing that as a citizen he was "in" civil society at least for 
> part of his personal "situationalization" (grr... not a good word but 
> I can't think of another at the moment...
>
> The question of his being "of" civil society really came down to 
> whether there was a personal normative alignment with his articulation 
> of, and identification with his corporate interests (wearing his 
> corporate situationalization hat) or with his "interests" as a 
> citizen, wearing another hat.
>
> Personally, at this point I would see whether someone was able and 
> willing to, for example, sign on to the normative (and programmatic) 
> positions as articulated by CS in WSIS 2003 and WSIS 2005 as a 
> reasonable indication of whether they were in alignment with CS in the 
> IG space i.e. whether they were "of" CS in the IG space. If yes, 
> "yes", if no, "no"... (and for the record, I see updating and adapting 
> those normative (and programmatic
> positions) as being the primary mission for CS going forward at least 
> to WSIS 2015).
>
> Others may (and very likely will) want to develop their own normative 
> position going forward toward WSIS 2015 (without an initial agreement 
> to align themselves with CS WSIS 2003 and 2005) or whatever, and they 
> may also choose to call their postioning as CS, and who is to stop 
> them; but for the purposes of my own activities in this area that is 
> how I will look to proceed.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland 
> Perry
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:13 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution, 
> consultation and MAG meeting)
>
> In message <00ef01ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>, at 09:52:11 on 
> Sat,
> 16 Feb 2013, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes
> >To be a wee bit philosophical here... We should probably be talking 
> >about those who are "in" CS (as for example, as a descriptive 
> >category for those not in government, business etc.etc.) in contrast 
> >with those who
> are "of" CS (i.e. those who have ascribed themselves or could be 
> ascribed to sharing/advocating in support of some set of normative 
> principles/values associated with CS...
> >
> >In this determination, "stalkers" could be seen as "in" CS without 
> >necessarily be "of" CS (unless there was a grouping supporting 
> >"stalker rights" as part of a large CS rights and principles 
> >initiative :)
>
> I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but how does it 
> work in practice?
>
> Recently a contributor here who is "in" a trade association was in 
> effect accused of being inextricably "of" that trade association 
> (although he very plausibly denied it).
>
> On the other hand, we all know about the professional difficulty 
> Government employees have with trying to express "a personal view"
> divorced from their day-job.
>
> The group of people I'm trying to place somewhere within the 
> eco-system are those "in" civil society who have been affected by 
> "something bad happening on the Internet". Do they have to join some 
> sort of lobbying group in order to become "of" something, and is that 
> something within Civil Society, or one of the other stakeholder groups (if
the latter, which...)?
> --
> Roland Perry
>
>
>



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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Sat Feb 16 23:09:28 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:39:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <001401ce0cc0$71233530$53699f90$@gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid>
 <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
 <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F901A.3010301@itforchange.net>
 <00ef01
 ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>
 <Bv$J5atNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com>
 <13ce628ad13.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <001401ce0cc0$71233530$53699f90$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13ce6578a76.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

This is nothing to do with corporate efficiency as much as it is to do 
with personal privacy and efficient guidelines for marketers to operate 
in a privacy sensitive manner, including a graded series of 
administrative actions ranging from warnings and fiena to other 
penalties such as jail time in case data theft, malware etc figure in 
the marketing campaign.

It also means producing sufficient arguments to counter heavy lobbying 
from some marketers who try to influence the law so that they can 
continue to violate internet user privacy while delivering unsolicited 
communication that is targeted by, for example, gathering a list of 
email addresses from God knows where, and trying to match them up with 
paper databases gained from postal junk mail, supermarket coupons / flyers etc

--srs (htc one x)



On 17 February 2013 9:09:38 AM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Suresh, I'm not the CS police or any sort of arbiter but FWIW to my mind
> simply saying that you "support good antispam laws and on public / isp
> education on Internet security" doesn't really make it "civil society"...
>
> The question is what are the underlying values/public interest that you are
> trying to achieve with or through "good antispam laws and on public / isp
> education on Internet security".
>
> It seems to me that achieving increased corporate efficiencies (and thus
> corporate profits) is as, or more likely the "interest" that is driving
> your/your employers actions as anything to do with enhancing the public
> good.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 7:18 PM
> To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Roland Perry'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
> consultation and MAG meeting)
>
> In my case, my activism so far has been on good antispam laws and on public
> / isp education on Internet security. Here, funnily enough, my interests and
> views are actually congruent to the interests and views of my current and
> past employers on a number of occasions. Though I obviously leave my work
> affiliation behind me when I participate anywhere in my personal capacity
>
> --srs (htc one x)
>
>
>
> On 17 February 2013 1:44:17 AM "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > My own opinion on this would be that folks such as you are describing
> > would in fact need to become somewhat pro-active to be "of" civil
> > society -- whether they joined a specific group would depend on the
> > circumstances. But if they were concerned that certain norms were
> > being expressed (for example
> > anti-stalking) or that normative based actions (anti-stalking
> > measures) were being proceeded with they would probably need to become
> part of some "group"
> > or other. However, the specifics of that "becoming part of" or of
> > those particular "groups" would vary dramatically all the way from
> > "likes" on a Facebook group to joining issue based organizations/demo's
> etc.etc.
> >
> > As for the person from the industry group... as I understood it, he
> > was arguing that as a citizen he was "in" civil society at least for
> > part of his personal "situationalization" (grr... not a good word but
> > I can't think of another at the moment...
> >
> > The question of his being "of" civil society really came down to
> > whether there was a personal normative alignment with his articulation
> > of, and identification with his corporate interests (wearing his
> > corporate situationalization hat) or with his "interests" as a
> > citizen, wearing another hat.
> >
> > Personally, at this point I would see whether someone was able and
> > willing to, for example, sign on to the normative (and programmatic)
> > positions as articulated by CS in WSIS 2003 and WSIS 2005 as a
> > reasonable indication of whether they were in alignment with CS in the
> > IG space i.e. whether they were "of" CS in the IG space. If yes,
> > "yes", if no, "no"... (and for the record, I see updating and adapting
> > those normative (and programmatic
> > positions) as being the primary mission for CS going forward at least
> > to WSIS 2015).
> >
> > Others may (and very likely will) want to develop their own normative
> > position going forward toward WSIS 2015 (without an initial agreement
> > to align themselves with CS WSIS 2003 and 2005) or whatever, and they
> > may also choose to call their postioning as CS, and who is to stop
> > them; but for the purposes of my own activities in this area that is
> > how I will look to proceed.
> >
> > M
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland
> > Perry
> > Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:13 AM
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
> > consultation and MAG meeting)
> >
> > In message <00ef01ce0c6e$60a5fd70$21f1f850$@gmail.com>, at 09:52:11 on
> > Sat,
> > 16 Feb 2013, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> writes
> > >To be a wee bit philosophical here... We should probably be talking
> > >about those who are "in" CS (as for example, as a descriptive
> > >category for those not in government, business etc.etc.) in contrast
> > >with those who
> > are "of" CS (i.e. those who have ascribed themselves or could be
> > ascribed to sharing/advocating in support of some set of normative
> > principles/values associated with CS...
> > >
> > >In this determination, "stalkers" could be seen as "in" CS without
> > >necessarily be "of" CS (unless there was a grouping supporting
> > >"stalker rights" as part of a large CS rights and principles
> > >initiative :)
> >
> > I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but how does it
> > work in practice?
> >
> > Recently a contributor here who is "in" a trade association was in
> > effect accused of being inextricably "of" that trade association
> > (although he very plausibly denied it).
> >
> > On the other hand, we all know about the professional difficulty
> > Government employees have with trying to express "a personal view"
> > divorced from their day-job.
> >
> > The group of people I'm trying to place somewhere within the
> > eco-system are those "in" civil society who have been affected by
> > "something bad happening on the Internet". Do they have to join some
> > sort of lobbying group in order to become "of" something, and is that
> > something within Civil Society, or one of the other stakeholder groups (if
> the latter, which...)?
> > --
> > Roland Perry
> >
> >
> >
>
>



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

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

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

From tracey at traceynaughton.com  Sat Feb 16 23:40:15 2013
From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:40:15 +1100
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <384A1133-A6FD-4346-8DC5-8C2D327C9F65@gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba> <CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com> <5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba> <384A1133-A6FD-4346-8DC5-8C2D327C9F65@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <11DC7AC4-F539-4B73-A581-F3C33B4E9E8B@traceynaughton.com>

But, there's no way of determining if those 127 people are able to 'pay attention' at this time, or if they are even online and available. This probably needs a charter amendment ;-) to say 2/3 of the active voters. Is anyone complaining about the result - clearly in favour? It's imperfect, as is democracy, but I think the amendments were accepted. I think forward movement is more important than a repeat process. 

Tracey Naughton

On 17 Feb 2013, at 11:34 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

As per the last elections, we have 127 members who participated in the coordinator elections and as per the Charter, they are deemed as members and eligible to vote. Two thirds of 127 would be around 84. 

The votes in favor do not meet this requirement under the Charter.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:18 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Hi Sala,
>  
> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>  
> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>  
> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote to get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of the reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of the ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>  
> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted to do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>  
> Ian
>  
> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
> To: Ian Peter
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>  
> Dear Ian and All,
> 
> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is mine. 
> 
> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
> 
> Option 1
> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the results of the votes.
> 
> Option 2
> Re-run the votes
> 
> 
> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh votes or extend the votes.
> 
> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
> 
> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
> 
> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.
> 
> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
> 
> Thank you and Kind Regards,
> Sala
> 
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Sala, are you sure?
>>  
>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments, because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant charter quote is below.
>>  
>> Amendments to the Charter
>> 
>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Ian Peter 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>  
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>> 
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>> 
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>> 
>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>> 
>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions, elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to Jeremy for helping out. 
>> 
>> With Kind Regards,
>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>  
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>  
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>  
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/9c700910/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Feb 16 23:45:13 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:45:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <001401ce0cc0$71233530$53699f90$@gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch>
 <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F901A.3010301@itforchange.net> <Bv$J5atNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com> <13ce628ad13.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <001401ce0cc0$71233530$53699f90$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgYHncTBp9y_fywynaokbioLk1QzZ6zT=SCq3OnWJbtDg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:39 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Suresh, I'm not the CS police or any sort of arbiter but FWIW to my mind
> simply saying that you "support good antispam laws and on public / isp
> education on Internet security" doesn't really make it "civil society"...

In the second part of the above sentence, you did exactly what you
denied doing in the first part of the sentence!


>
> The question is what are the underlying values/public interest that you are
> trying to achieve with or through "good antispam laws and on public / isp
> education on Internet security".
>

Now you are being the CS judge and jury!

-- 
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  Sun Feb 17 00:14:49 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:14:49 -0800
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgYHncTBp9y_fywynaokbioLk1QzZ6zT=SCq3OnWJbtDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <5903538319558571816@unknownmsgid> <20130205151358.6d616383@quill.bollow.ch> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F901A.3010301@it
 forchange.net> <Bv$J5a
	tNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com> <017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com> <13ce628ad13.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <001401ce0cc0$71233530$53699f90$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgYHncTBp9y_fywynaokbioLk1QzZ6zT=SCq3OnWJbtDg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003b01ce0ccd$b65fbe40$231f3ac0$@gmail.com>

I didn't say that I don't have opinions.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:45 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
consultation and MAG meeting)

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:39 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Suresh, I'm not the CS police or any sort of arbiter but FWIW to my 
> mind simply saying that you "support good antispam laws and on public 
> / isp education on Internet security" doesn't really make it "civil
society"...

In the second part of the above sentence, you did exactly what you denied
doing in the first part of the sentence!


>
> The question is what are the underlying values/public interest that 
> you are trying to achieve with or through "good antispam laws and on 
> public / isp education on Internet security".
>

Now you are being the CS judge and jury!

--
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 ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 00:18:15 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:18:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba> <CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com> <5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba> <384A1133-A6FD-4346-8DC5-8C2D327C9F65@gmail.com> <11DC7AC4-F539-4B73-A581-F3C33B4E9E8B@traceynaughton.com> 
Message-ID: <1361078295.6129.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

IGC Charter Amendment Conflict Resolution Note
Date:
17th Feb 2013
To:          IGC
CS Members              
From:    Imran Ahmed
Shah
Dear IGC CS Members,
With
reference to the recent Formally Proposed Charter Amendment Proposals, we
observed conflict to finalize and accept the survey poll results. I am not
appeal team member or mediator but being an observer and IGC Voting Member, may
perform a little bit effort about arbitration function. Let me try to rephrase the result
and that will finally help to conclude the survey poll outcomes. 
1.       Recent Results of the IGC
Charter Amendment is as follows:
76 responses were submitted,
though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were
compulsory.
On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
2.       With reference to the
Charter Amendments to approve, Charter says:
“Amendments to the
Charter
This charter can be
amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as
approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The
membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most
currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted
in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.”
3.       Now as per Charter, we have
to recall the voters of the previous election results:
“There were 129 people who commenced the survey. One
of them self-identified as not being a member of the Internet Governance
Caucus, and one of them bailed out when asked that question. This leaves 127
people who self-identified. Of those, six people claimed that they had already
voted in this year's election, so they were not offered the opportunity to vote
again. Of the remaining 121, 106 took that opportunity.”
4.       By reviewing
the rule “everyone
who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the
charter”, and
result of the coordinators election, (as declared by Dr Jeremy), 106 used their
vote in the previous election.

Note:Point to be noted, the charter say about “everyone
who voted in the previous election”, and does not say “last one
year elections”
So: Two-thirds (2/3) of 106 = 70.667
(rounding figure is 71)
5.       Result: (http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments)
a.       According to
the above statistics, following proposal has required 71 votes in favour:
i.e. Proposal 3, which was as follows:
----------------------------
On proposal 3, 71 voted in
favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
3. Proposal of Jeremy
and co-proposers on updating the reference to the mailing list
Under "Working
methods", update the address of the mailing list from governance at lists.cpsr.orgto governance at lists.igcaucus.org.
----------------------------
b.      If 70.667  is rounded as 70, one more option may be qualified and that is Proposal
1.  
On proposal 1, 70 voted in
favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
----------------------------
1. Proposal of Avri and
co-proposers on Voting (regarding the affirmation of caucus members and the
provision of an "abstain" option)
"Prior
to voting the prospective voter must personally ascertain that they are a
member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a
voter must affirm membership on the voter form prior to voting). The decision
to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the
criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published
after the election with the results of the election.

All ballots will include the ability for voters to abstain on any choice
included on the ballot."
----------------------------
6.       There are some
discussion on the mailing list that:
a.       the information
related to Voters List Selection and significant information about the required
Quorum (2/3 of voters) and observer members, voting and non-voting members were
not communicated to the list, 
b.      Survey Poll
deadline intimation or reminders were not released, and 
c.       Also requested
to extend the same survey time 
Remarks:Discussion about the selection of
previous or current coordinators election, required quorum and some questions
about the poll are on record. These observations or objections may be submitted
to Appeal Team but there is no strong objection that could help to declare the current
survey poll “INVALID” and to re-run the same. However, any objection from
the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time,
or due to any technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the
given time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.
7.       Now, what’s
next, how to proceed “The way forward:
There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options”
“Any options that may remain in the draft charter after
thirty (30) days, will also be voted on as part of the charter acceptance
process. In the case that there are options, the vote will be organized to
first ask for acceptance, as described above, of the basic charter with options
left unresolved. The same ballot will also include a vote on the options. For
each case where there are options, the option that receives the most votes will
be selected.”
There is provisioning in the charter
regarding the unresolved options, we have to prepare a next Survey Poll for the
acceptance of the latest form of the Charter, and we can arrange to resolve the
issue of the remaining proposed amendments:
a.       by the remaining voters within
this 30 day’s Survey Poll, the unresolved amendments may be submitted to the
voting members asking that if they are not comfortable with the version of the
charter, which of the following proposed option they would prefer to be
included in the Charter. 
b.      If we do not include, a fresh
revised survey may be initiated through the same way, but… after the 30 day’s
Survey Poll. We may expect a technical question “should we require the complete
process from bottom, that requires “proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members”, I think this may be resolved after discussion on
the mailing list.
Thank & Regards
 
Imran Ahmed Shah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/90c39df4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGC Charter Amendment - Conflict Resolution Note.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 500313 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130216/90c39df4/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Feb 17 01:36:26 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:36:26 +1100
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <1361078295.6129.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com> <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba> <CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com> <5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba> <384A1133-A6FD-4346-8DC5-8C2D327C9F65@gmail.com> <11DC7AC4-F539-4B73-A581-F3C33B4E9E8B@traceynaughton.com>  <1361078295.6129.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5FCA752DE4254EF887620575893C9DCA@Toshiba>

Hi Imran,

I think your analysis is very good and helpful. One caveat, however – the conditions you refer to in your point 7 refer to the original adoption of the Charter only, and not to amendments.

But otherwise, your analysis I think correctly points out that Proposal 3 was actually adopted by the narrowest of margins, and proposal 1 misses out by only one vote (the other proposals are 6 and 9 votes short respectively).

Your suggested option However, any objection from the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time, or due to any technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the given time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.

In other words – if just one person is able to claim that they didnt receive the ballot, or were unable to complete the ballot for a technical reason, perhaps the co coordinators can allow a late ballot for persons thus affected. 

I’m not sure that will affect the proposals which are currently 6 and 9 votes short, but perhaps the proposal which is one vote short might be able to be amended. 

So I think your analysis might be very valuable in moving this forward. It’s up to the co coordinators to determine next steps but I think that’s useful information to assist them!

Ian Peter


From: Imran Ahmed Shah 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:18 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Norbert Bollow 
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

IGC Charter Amendment Conflict Resolution Note
Date: 17th Feb 2013
To:          IGC CS Members              
From:    Imran Ahmed Shah
Dear IGC CS Members,
With reference to the recent Formally Proposed Charter Amendment Proposals, we observed conflict to finalize and accept the survey poll results. I am not appeal team member or mediator but being an observer and IGC Voting Member, may perform a little bit effort about arbitration function. Let me try to rephrase the result and that will finally help to conclude the survey poll outcomes. 
1.       Recent Results of the IGC Charter Amendment is as follows:
76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.
On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
2.       With reference to the Charter Amendments to approve, Charter says:
“Amendments to the Charter
This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.”
3.       Now as per Charter, we have to recall the voters of the previous election results:
“There were 129 people who commenced the survey. One of them self-identified as not being a member of the Internet Governance Caucus, and one of them bailed out when asked that question. This leaves 127 people who self-identified. Of those, six people claimed that they had already voted in this year's election, so they were not offered the opportunity to vote again. Of the remaining 121, 106 took that opportunity.”
4.       By reviewing the rule “everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter”, and result of the coordinators election, (as declared by Dr Jeremy), 106 used their vote in the previous election.

Note: Point to be noted, the charter say about “everyone who voted in the previous election”, and does not say “last one year elections”
So: Two-thirds (2/3) of 106 = 70.667 (rounding figure is 71)
5.       Result: (http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments)
a.       According to the above statistics, following proposal has required 71 votes in favour:
i.e. Proposal 3, which was as follows:
----------------------------
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
3. Proposal of Jeremy and co-proposers on updating the reference to the mailing list
Under "Working methods", update the address of the mailing list from governance at lists.cpsr.org to governance at lists.igcaucus.org.
----------------------------
b.      If 70.667  is rounded as 70, one more option may be qualified and that is Proposal 1.  
On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
----------------------------
1. Proposal of Avri and co-proposers on Voting (regarding the affirmation of caucus members and the provision of an "abstain" option)
"Prior to voting the prospective voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form prior to voting). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with the results of the election.

All ballots will include the ability for voters to abstain on any choice included on the ballot."
----------------------------
6.       There are some discussion on the mailing list that:
a.       the information related to Voters List Selection and significant information about the required Quorum (2/3 of voters) and observer members, voting and non-voting members were not communicated to the list, 
b.      Survey Poll deadline intimation or reminders were not released, and 
c.       Also requested to extend the same survey time 
Remarks: Discussion about the selection of previous or current coordinators election, required quorum and some questions about the poll are on record. These observations or objections may be submitted to Appeal Team but there is no strong objection that could help to declare the current survey poll “INVALID” and to re-run the same. However, any objection from the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time, or due to any technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the given time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.
7.       Now, what’s next, how to proceed “The way forward:
There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options”
“Any options that may remain in the draft charter after thirty (30) days, will also be voted on as part of the charter acceptance process. In the case that there are options, the vote will be organized to first ask for acceptance, as described above, of the basic charter with options left unresolved. The same ballot will also include a vote on the options. For each case where there are options, the option that receives the most votes will be selected.”
There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options, we have to prepare a next Survey Poll for the acceptance of the latest form of the Charter, and we can arrange to resolve the issue of the remaining proposed amendments:
a.       by the remaining voters within this 30 day’s Survey Poll, the unresolved amendments may be submitted to the voting members asking that if they are not comfortable with the version of the charter, which of the following proposed option they would prefer to be included in the Charter. 
b.      If we do not include, a fresh revised survey may be initiated through the same way, but… after the 30 day’s Survey Poll. We may expect a technical question “should we require the complete process from bottom, that requires “proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members”, I think this may be resolved after discussion on the mailing list.
Thank & Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/92c81220/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 04:32:06 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:32:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
Message-ID: <1361093526.52240.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>


Ian, 
Thanks, comments related to point 7 may be discussed further.

I think, Proposer may simply initiate a formal request to the coordinators to provide a "benefit of doubt" and the fraction .667 is not a complete decimal value or represent a full vote. But it depends. 

Regards

Imran

------------------------------
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 11:36 AM PKT Ian Peter wrote:

>Hi Imran,
>
>I think your analysis is very good and helpful. One caveat, however – the conditions you refer to in your point 7 refer to the original adoption of the Charter only, and not to amendments.
>
>But otherwise, your analysis I think correctly points out that Proposal 3 was actually adopted by the narrowest of margins, and proposal 1 misses out by only one vote (the other proposals are 6 and 9 votes short respectively).
>
>Your suggested option However, any objection from the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time, or due to any technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the given time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.
>
>In other words – if just one person is able to claim that they didnt receive the ballot, or were unable to complete the ballot for a technical reason, perhaps the co coordinators can allow a late ballot for persons thus affected. 
>
>I’m not sure that will affect the proposals which are currently 6 and 9 votes short, but perhaps the proposal which is one vote short might be able to be amended. 
>
>So I think your analysis might be very valuable in moving this forward. It’s up to the co coordinators to determine next steps but I think that’s useful information to assist them!
>
>Ian Peter
>
>
>From: Imran Ahmed Shah 
>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:18 PM
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Norbert Bollow 
>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>
>IGC Charter Amendment Conflict Resolution Note
>Date: 17th Feb 2013
>To:          IGC CS Members              
>From:    Imran Ahmed Shah
>Dear IGC CS Members,
>With reference to the recent Formally Proposed Charter Amendment Proposals, we observed conflict to finalize and accept the survey poll results. I am not appeal team member or mediator but being an observer and IGC Voting Member, may perform a little bit effort about arbitration function. Let me try to rephrase the result and that will finally help to conclude the survey poll outcomes. 
>1.       Recent Results of the IGC Charter Amendment is as follows:
>76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>2.       With reference to the Charter Amendments to approve, Charter says:
>“Amendments to the Charter
>This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.”
>3.       Now as per Charter, we have to recall the voters of the previous election results:
>“There were 129 people who commenced the survey. One of them self-identified as not being a member of the Internet Governance Caucus, and one of them bailed out when asked that question. This leaves 127 people who self-identified. Of those, six people claimed that they had already voted in this year's election, so they were not offered the opportunity to vote again. Of the remaining 121, 106 took that opportunity.”
>4.       By reviewing the rule “everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter”, and result of the coordinators election, (as declared by Dr Jeremy), 106 used their vote in the previous election.
>
>Note: Point to be noted, the charter say about “everyone who voted in the previous election”, and does not say “last one year elections”
>So: Two-thirds (2/3) of 106 = 70.667 (rounding figure is 71)
>5.       Result: (http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments)
>a.       According to the above statistics, following proposal has required 71 votes in favour:
>i.e. Proposal 3, which was as follows:
>----------------------------
>On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>3. Proposal of Jeremy and co-proposers on updating the reference to the mailing list
>Under "Working methods", update the address of the mailing list from governance at lists.cpsr.org to governance at lists.igcaucus.org.
>----------------------------
>b.      If 70.667  is rounded as 70, one more option may be qualified and that is Proposal 1.  
>On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>----------------------------
>1. Proposal of Avri and co-proposers on Voting (regarding the affirmation of caucus members and the provision of an "abstain" option)
>"Prior to voting the prospective voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form prior to voting). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with the results of the election.
>
>All ballots will include the ability for voters to abstain on any choice included on the ballot."
>----------------------------
>6.       There are some discussion on the mailing list that:
>a.       the information related to Voters List Selection and significant information about the required Quorum (2/3 of voters) and observer members, voting and non-voting members were not communicated to the list, 
>b.      Survey Poll deadline intimation or reminders were not released, and 
>c.       Also requested to extend the same survey time 
>Remarks: Discussion about the selection of previous or current coordinators election, required quorum and some questions about the poll are on record. These observations or objections may be submitted to Appeal Team but there is no strong objection that could help to declare the current survey poll “INVALID” and to re-run the same. However, any objection from the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time, or due to any technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the given time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.
>7.       Now, what’s next, how to proceed “The way forward:
>There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options”
>“Any options that may remain in the draft charter after thirty (30) days, will also be voted on as part of the charter acceptance process. In the case that there are options, the vote will be organized to first ask for acceptance, as described above, of the basic charter with options left unresolved. The same ballot will also include a vote on the options. For each case where there are options, the option that receives the most votes will be selected.”
>There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options, we have to prepare a next Survey Poll for the acceptance of the latest form of the Charter, and we can arrange to resolve the issue of the remaining proposed amendments:
>a.       by the remaining voters within this 30 day’s Survey Poll, the unresolved amendments may be submitted to the voting members asking that if they are not comfortable with the version of the charter, which of the following proposed option they would prefer to be included in the Charter. 
>b.      If we do not include, a fresh revised survey may be initiated through the same way, but… after the 30 day’s Survey Poll. We may expect a technical question “should we require the complete process from bottom, that requires “proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members”, I think this may be resolved after discussion on the mailing list.
>Thank & Regards
>
>Imran Ahmed Shah
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb 17 06:39:04 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:09:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <13ce6242d55.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>,<511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCAB5D9@W8-EX10MB.unam.local> <13ce6242d55.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <5120C158.8000804@itforchange.net>


On Sunday 17 February 2013 08:43 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> That term progressive, in the 'right' hands seems to produce, as 
> parminder himself says, a distrust of multistakeholder processes, and 
> I personally can't think of anything more regressive.
>

Only becuase i am (mis) quoted by name, I must correct it - i spoke of 
mistrust of normatively loose conceptions of multistakeholderism, and 
not necessarily of multistakeholderism..... Since in the very next 
sentence i say that such kind of normative loose-ness is the biggest 
enemy of multistakeholderism, it is obvious that i am not opposed to any 
kind of multistakeholderism but only some kinds.....
>
>
> So please, I know where the term originally came from, but avoiding 
> repurposing a much older English word to mean something entirely 
> different would be a very good thing indeed.
>
> Has it ever been considered that the opposition to this brand of 
> politics (a focus on control of words, terms and if possible 
> governance structures) as opposed to policy, comes more from people 
> who work on the ground, hands on, in multistakeholder groups on 
> whatever cause?
>
> In such a case, it may then be quite arguable which side is actually 
> representing public interest, or whether there can be one true 
> perception of such interest on more nuanced topics. So, that test 
> fails if you try to seek positive proof, rather than 'negative'
>
> --srs (htc one x)
>
>
> On 17 February 2013 12:23:56 AM "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote:
>
>> carry on! slice and dice until you're alone! you'll be at the top of 
>> the hill. Much of a top but not much of a hill.
>>
>> leave any claim to diversity and any chance for tech-knowledge based 
>> input by the wayside.
>>
>> What a waste of Roland's, Suresh's and McTim's good will, honesty and 
>> energy expense.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Alejandro Pisanty
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
>> Facultad de Química UNAM
>> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>>
>> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
>>
>> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, 
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
>> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder 
>> [parminder at itforchange.net]
>> *Enviado el:* sábado, 16 de febrero de 2013 02:52
>> *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> *Asunto:* Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus 
>> contribution, consultation and MAG meeting)
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 14 February 2013 01:26 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> <snip)
>>> And that sounds like it includes my recent activity, which has been 
>>> working with interest-based charities, volunteers etc who have a 
>>> focus on one particular aspect of social justice, human rights and 
>>> the rule of law: Prevention of violence against women - in 
>>> particular those who are tracked and harassed via their Internet 
>>> footprint (commonly on social networking sites).
>>>
>>> However, I'm also aware that in order to achieve the goal of 
>>> protecting women, some people might characterise the techniques 
>>> involved as forms of selective censorship and attempts to strip away 
>>> anonymity (in both cases with respect to their attackers).
>>>
>>> So not every part of Civil Society necessarily has the same view on 
>>> core issues such as these.
>>
>> No, congruity of views in not the test. Working for public interest 
>> is. Although there can be different and contested notions of public 
>> interest - and that space of contestation, negotiation and possible 
>> resolution/ harmonisation is called politics, (No, Suresh, politics 
>> is not what you think it is. It is a good word, although it, like 
>> almost anything else - markets for instance, can involve bad/ 
>> manipulative practises as well as outcomes.)
>>
>> There is ages old distinction between public interest and private 
>> interest, including organised private interests, and this distinction 
>> holds now as ever. Any non-governmental body involved in public 
>> interest issues/ advocacy is a civil society organisation. In fact I 
>> will accept a definition broader than the one used by Council of 
>> Europe and quoted by Norbert. I will include organisation that dont 
>> believe in the concept of 'social justice', may in fact decry this 
>> concept as dangerous to people's liberties, (there are so many of 
>> them, esp in the US - BTW, Milton has said on this list that there is 
>> no thing like social justice) as long as such organisations truly 
>> believe that they are working in the larger public interest, and not 
>> narrow private interests of defined parties. (No, working, say, on 
>> disability rights cannot be called as working for private interests 
>> of defined parties. It is public interest work, and 'disabled people' 
>> are here to be considered as a distinct 'public group' and not a 
>> private group. Dont have space or time to argue the basis of this 
>> distinction any further here.)
>>
>> These distinctions are hallowed norms of democratic public life for 
>> decades now, if not centuries.... The extent of anti-democratic 
>> thought that has permeated into many people's conception of what is 
>> presented as a new political model of multistakeholderism is the 
>> reason that many progressive groups have begun to look at (such 
>> conceptions of) multistakeholderism itself with suspicion. It is this 
>> kind of normative loose-ness - that works for the interests of the 
>> more powerful rather than the less powerful, for whom democracy is 
>> supposed to work) - that is multistakeholderism's biggest enemy.
>>
>>
>> The normative basis and boundaries of and within multistakeholderism, 
>> and its relationship with democracy, have to saved, as well as 
>> expounded very clearly, for  it to be seriously considered as a form 
>> / system of participatory democracy. (If that is what MSism really is 
>> in the minds of its proponents.)
>>
>> In the end, when such discussions as this one takes place, I can 
>> hardly ever stop myself from re(quoting) the father of free market 
>> thinking, Adam Smith, who said...
>>
>>         "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for
>>         merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a
>>         conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to
>>         raise prices…. But though the law cannot hinder people of the
>>         same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do
>>         nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render
>>         them necessary. "
>>
>>
>>         "To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always
>>         the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or
>>         regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought
>>         always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought
>>         never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully
>>         examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the
>>         most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men,
>>         whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the
>>         public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even
>>         oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many
>>         occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
>>
>>
>>
>> What a profanity it is to utter something like this in any 
>> multistakeholder environment... nay, it now seems it may be 
>> inadmissible even within a IG related CS group.... Adam Smith I 
>> understand may have been unceremoniously evicted from such spaces. 
>> Poor guy - and he thought he was trying to make (or mark) market 
>> thinking and economic-logic as a/ the premier force in our social 
>> systems.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/a2cacb7d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Sun Feb 17 07:06:13 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:06:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] "Civil Society" -> request to be civil in this
 discussion
In-Reply-To: <003b01ce0ccd$b65fbe40$231f3ac0$@gmail.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
	<20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
	<DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
	<20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
	<edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
	<3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<511F901A.3010301@itforchange.net>
	<Bv$J5a
 tNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com>
	<13ce628ad13.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<001401ce0cc0$71233530$53699f90$@gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxgYHncTBp9y_fywynaokbioLk1QzZ6zT=SCq3OnWJbtDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<003b01ce0ccd$b65fbe40$231f3ac0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130217130613.6d5fdf61@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]

Dear all

It is quite obvious that there as strong differences of opinion among
us as to what constitutes "civil society".

There may be benefits from discussing the different viewpoints.

I request however that such discussions be conducted with civility
please, i.e. in a manner that is respectful of the other
participants in the conversation, including those colleagues whose
viewpoint is very different.

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Sun Feb 17 07:29:20 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:29:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] "Civil Society" -> request to be civil in this
 discussion
In-Reply-To: <20130217130613.6d5fdf61@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
	<20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
	<DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
	<20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
	<edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
	<3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<511F901A.3010301@itforchange.net>
	<Bv$J5a
 tNp9HRFAFd@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<017301ce0c82$3a68c6b0$af3a5410$@gmail.com>
	<13ce628ad13.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<001401ce0cc0$71233530$53699f90$@gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxgYHncTBp9y_fywynaokbioLk1QzZ6zT=SCq3OnWJbtDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<003b01ce0ccd$b65fbe40$231f3ac0$@gmail.com>
	<20130217130613.6d5fdf61@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130217132920.39489874@quill.bollow.ch>

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> 
> I request however that such discussions be conducted with civility
> please

Oops I again forgot to strip the To: and Cc: headers, sorry. The request
was intended for the Caucus as a whole, not just for the person whose
posting happened to be the most recent one in this thread.

Greetings,
Norbert

 

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sun Feb 17 09:24:12 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:24:12 -0500
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <5120C158.8000804@itforchange.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <0000013caac11254-b3eceb3c-1e0f-4019-a8ce-aa1e1bd761f3-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20130207122333.0f63706f@quill.bollow.ch> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>,<511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCAB5D9@W8-EX10MB.unam.local> <13ce6242d55.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <5120C158.8000
 804@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <776F630D-0EE1-4D6E-B399-CA848D3F3AFC@acm.org>


On 17 Feb 2013, at 06:39, parminder wrote:

>  i spoke of mistrust of normatively loose conceptions of multistakeholderism, and not necessarily of multistakeholderism..


thank you for bringing this out clearly.  Though I try to avoid the use of the word multistakeholderism as I beleive any discussion of -isms is problematic based of the dogmatic notions that are contained in most -ism containers, I have a similar problem with the multiple contradictory ways in which "multistakeholder" is being applied.

I think, however, that the problem is endemic to any multistakeholder model or implementation.  We all come to it with our stakeholder group's and personal PoV.  In fact some of us, e.g. those who work with government or business or who are part of several stakeholder groups, come with multiple PoV on how the multistakeholder model is to be done.  

I think coming up with a more developed set of working guidelines on what it takes for a organization to reasonably consider its self as providing a Multistakeholder environment would be a useful thing to do.  I think it needs to be done through both theory and the practical study of what is being done.  I think the IGF is a perfect place for such explorations, and review.

avri

* IGF -0 Interent Governance Forum
* PoV - Point of View
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 17 11:59:26 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:59:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <776F630D-0EE1-4D6E-B399-CA848D3F3AFC@acm.org>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch>
	<511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
	<CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
	<C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
	<20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
	<7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
	<20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
	<DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
	<20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
	<CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
	<edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
	<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCAB5D9@W8-EX10MB.unam.local>
	<13ce6242d55.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<5120C158.8000804@itforchange.net>
	<776F630D-0EE1-4D6E-B399-CA848D3F3AFC@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130217175926.368fff6b@quill.bollow.ch>

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I think coming up with a more developed set of working guidelines on
> what it takes for a organization to reasonably consider its self as
> providing a Multistakeholder environment would be a useful thing to
> do.

+1

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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Sun Feb 17 12:16:53 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:16:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com>

Se puede saber quienes votaron... y quienes no
Y que voten, los que no votaron...y si no desean votar o no quieren votar,
hay que ver si realmente quieren seguir como member del CIG...
Se necesita una depuracion...


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/17 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>

>
> Ian,
> Thanks, comments related to point 7 may be discussed further.
>
> I think, Proposer may simply initiate a formal request to the coordinators
> to provide a "benefit of doubt" and the fraction .667 is not a complete
> decimal value or represent a full vote. But it depends.
>
> Regards
>
> Imran
>
> ------------------------------
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 11:36 AM PKT Ian Peter wrote:
>
> >Hi Imran,
> >
> >I think your analysis is very good and helpful. One caveat, however – the
> conditions you refer to in your point 7 refer to the original adoption of
> the Charter only, and not to amendments.
> >
> >But otherwise, your analysis I think correctly points out that Proposal 3
> was actually adopted by the narrowest of margins, and proposal 1 misses out
> by only one vote (the other proposals are 6 and 9 votes short respectively).
> >
> >Your suggested option However, any objection from the members/voters who
> could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time, or due to any
> technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the given
> time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.
> >
> >In other words – if just one person is able to claim that they didnt
> receive the ballot, or were unable to complete the ballot for a technical
> reason, perhaps the co coordinators can allow a late ballot for persons
> thus affected.
> >
> >I’m not sure that will affect the proposals which are currently 6 and 9
> votes short, but perhaps the proposal which is one vote short might be able
> to be amended.
> >
> >So I think your analysis might be very valuable in moving this forward.
> It’s up to the co coordinators to determine next steps but I think that’s
> useful information to assist them!
> >
> >Ian Peter
> >
> >
> >From: Imran Ahmed Shah
> >Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:18 PM
> >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Norbert
> Bollow
> >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
> >
> >IGC Charter Amendment Conflict Resolution Note
> >Date: 17th Feb 2013
> >To:          IGC CS Members
> >From:    Imran Ahmed Shah
> >Dear IGC CS Members,
> >With reference to the recent Formally Proposed Charter Amendment
> Proposals, we observed conflict to finalize and accept the survey poll
> results. I am not appeal team member or mediator but being an observer and
> IGC Voting Member, may perform a little bit effort about arbitration
> function. Let me try to rephrase the result and that will finally help to
> conclude the survey poll outcomes.
> >1.       Recent Results of the IGC Charter Amendment is as follows:
> >76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
> >On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> >On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> >On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> >On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
> >2.       With reference to the Charter Amendments to approve, Charter
> says:
> >“Amendments to the Charter
> >This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
> members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter
> are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the
> charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a
> member for amending the charter.”
> >3.       Now as per Charter, we have to recall the voters of the previous
> election results:
> >“There were 129 people who commenced the survey. One of them
> self-identified as not being a member of the Internet Governance Caucus,
> and one of them bailed out when asked that question. This leaves 127 people
> who self-identified. Of those, six people claimed that they had already
> voted in this year's election, so they were not offered the opportunity to
> vote again. Of the remaining 121, 106 took that opportunity.”
> >4.       By reviewing the rule “everyone who voted in the previous
> election will be deemed a member for amending the charter”, and result of
> the coordinators election, (as declared by Dr Jeremy), 106 used their vote
> in the previous election.
> >
> >Note: Point to be noted, the charter say about “everyone who voted in the
> previous election”, and does not say “last one year elections”
> >So: Two-thirds (2/3) of 106 = 70.667 (rounding figure is 71)
> >5.       Result: (
> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments)
> >a.       According to the above statistics, following proposal has
> required 71 votes in favour:
> >i.e. Proposal 3, which was as follows:
> >----------------------------
> >On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> >3. Proposal of Jeremy and co-proposers on updating the reference to the
> mailing list
> >Under "Working methods", update the address of the mailing list from
> governance at lists.cpsr.org to governance at lists.igcaucus.org.
> >----------------------------
> >b.      If 70.667  is rounded as 70, one more option may be qualified and
> that is Proposal 1.
> >On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> >----------------------------
> >1. Proposal of Avri and co-proposers on Voting (regarding the affirmation
> of caucus members and the provision of an "abstain" option)
> >"Prior to voting the prospective voter must personally ascertain that
> they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described
> elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information
> (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form prior to voting).
> The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision
> based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters
> will be published after the election with the results of the election.
> >
> >All ballots will include the ability for voters to abstain on any choice
> included on the ballot."
> >----------------------------
> >6.       There are some discussion on the mailing list that:
> >a.       the information related to Voters List Selection and significant
> information about the required Quorum (2/3 of voters) and observer members,
> voting and non-voting members were not communicated to the list,
> >b.      Survey Poll deadline intimation or reminders were not released,
> and
> >c.       Also requested to extend the same survey time
> >Remarks: Discussion about the selection of previous or current
> coordinators election, required quorum and some questions about the poll
> are on record. These observations or objections may be submitted to Appeal
> Team but there is no strong objection that could help to declare the
> current survey poll “INVALID” and to re-run the same. However, any
> objection from the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast
> their vote in time, or due to any technical reason faced by them to
> complete their survey poll in the given time period, may be addressed and
> should be compensated accordingly.
> >7.       Now, what’s next, how to proceed “The way forward:
> >There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options”
> >“Any options that may remain in the draft charter after thirty (30) days,
> will also be voted on as part of the charter acceptance process. In the
> case that there are options, the vote will be organized to first ask for
> acceptance, as described above, of the basic charter with options left
> unresolved. The same ballot will also include a vote on the options. For
> each case where there are options, the option that receives the most votes
> will be selected.”
> >There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options, we
> have to prepare a next Survey Poll for the acceptance of the latest form of
> the Charter, and we can arrange to resolve the issue of the remaining
> proposed amendments:
> >a.       by the remaining voters within this 30 day’s Survey Poll, the
> unresolved amendments may be submitted to the voting members asking that if
> they are not comfortable with the version of the charter, which of the
> following proposed option they would prefer to be included in the Charter.
> >b.      If we do not include, a fresh revised survey may be initiated
> through the same way, but… after the 30 day’s Survey Poll. We may expect a
> technical question “should we require the complete process from bottom,
> that requires “proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members”, I think this
> may be resolved after discussion on the mailing list.
> >Thank & Regards
> >
> >Imran Ahmed Shah
> >
> >
>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> >For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/e4fe8d56/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sun Feb 17 12:32:08 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:32:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <74EAD1FA-AAB1-4C80-98E8-BC81B6A76AAE@acm.org>


On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:16, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote:

> Se necesita una depuracion...


I still beleive that the voting list being pruned to the voters of the last election who had affirmed that they subscribe to the IGC charter, is a pretty serious purging.

How many organizations require a yearly affirmation such as that?

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Sun Feb 17 12:44:18 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:44:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <74EAD1FA-AAB1-4C80-98E8-BC81B6A76AAE@acm.org>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com>
	<74EAD1FA-AAB1-4C80-98E8-BC81B6A76AAE@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20130217184418.02984e89@quill.bollow.ch>

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:16, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote:
> 
> > Se necesita una depuracion...
> 
> 
> I still believe that the voting list being pruned to the voters of
> the last election who had affirmed that they subscribe to the IGC
> charter, is a pretty serious purging.
> 
> How many organizations require a yearly affirmation such as that?

I don't know of any other examples.

It's a necessary kind of rule though in the context of the kind of
really high quorum that we just rediscovered than we have.

It would be very reasonable IMO to propose a charter amendment which
replaces the 2/3 quorum with a 2/3 qualified majority of those
answering the question for any particular charter amendment proposal,
AND at the same time also removes the special category of "members for
purposes of amending the charter" (i.e. charter amendment polls would
be just like other votes in that each person who has been
subscribed to the list for at least two months is given a voter
account, and people affirm themselves to be caucus members as part of
the process of participating in the poll.

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  Sun Feb 17 12:53:20 2013
From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:53:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <97C2EAEE-53F6-44AD-85BC-40CB241D2343@christopherwilkinson.eu>

Good evening:

Is this thread unravelling? For my part (although I read this List quite regularly):

-	I do not know whether I am on a list of voters

-	I do not know what we/you are supposed to be voting about

-	I do not know why we need to amend the IGC Charter

-	with reference to the proposals referred to below, I do not know what they are about or where to find them.

Without wishing to sound obtuse, I do wonder whether others on this List share my perplexity.

Just a thought,

CW




On 17 Feb 2013, at 18:16, José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Se puede saber quienes votaron... y quienes no
> Y que voten, los que no votaron...y si no desean votar o no quieren votar, hay que ver si realmente quieren seguir como member del CIG...
> Se necesita una depuracion...
> 
> 
> Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
>                         Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo
> 
> 
> 2013/2/17 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
> 
> Ian,
> Thanks, comments related to point 7 may be discussed further.
> 
> I think, Proposer may simply initiate a formal request to the coordinators to provide a "benefit of doubt" and the fraction .667 is not a complete decimal value or represent a full vote. But it depends.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Imran
> 
> ------------------------------
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 11:36 AM PKT Ian Peter wrote:
> 
> >Hi Imran,
> >
> >I think your analysis is very good and helpful. One caveat, however – the conditions you refer to in your point 7 refer to the original adoption of the Charter only, and not to amendments.
> >
> >But otherwise, your analysis I think correctly points out that Proposal 3 was actually adopted by the narrowest of margins, and proposal 1 misses out by only one vote (the other proposals are 6 and 9 votes short respectively).
> >
> >Your suggested option However, any objection from the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time, or due to any technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the given time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.
> >
> >In other words – if just one person is able to claim that they didnt receive the ballot, or were unable to complete the ballot for a technical reason, perhaps the co coordinators can allow a late ballot for persons thus affected.
> >
> >I’m not sure that will affect the proposals which are currently 6 and 9 votes short, but perhaps the proposal which is one vote short might be able to be amended.
> >
> >So I think your analysis might be very valuable in moving this forward. It’s up to the co coordinators to determine next steps but I think that’s useful information to assist them!
> >
> >Ian Peter
> >
> >
> >From: Imran Ahmed Shah
> >Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:18 PM
> >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Norbert Bollow
> >Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
> >
> >IGC Charter Amendment Conflict Resolution Note
> >Date: 17th Feb 2013
> >To:          IGC CS Members
> >From:    Imran Ahmed Shah
> >Dear IGC CS Members,
> >With reference to the recent Formally Proposed Charter Amendment Proposals, we observed conflict to finalize and accept the survey poll results. I am not appeal team member or mediator but being an observer and IGC Voting Member, may perform a little bit effort about arbitration function. Let me try to rephrase the result and that will finally help to conclude the survey poll outcomes.
> >1.       Recent Results of the IGC Charter Amendment is as follows:
> >76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.
> >On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> >On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
> >On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> >On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
> >2.       With reference to the Charter Amendments to approve, Charter says:
> >“Amendments to the Charter
> >This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.”
> >3.       Now as per Charter, we have to recall the voters of the previous election results:
> >“There were 129 people who commenced the survey. One of them self-identified as not being a member of the Internet Governance Caucus, and one of them bailed out when asked that question. This leaves 127 people who self-identified. Of those, six people claimed that they had already voted in this year's election, so they were not offered the opportunity to vote again. Of the remaining 121, 106 took that opportunity.”
> >4.       By reviewing the rule “everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter”, and result of the coordinators election, (as declared by Dr Jeremy), 106 used their vote in the previous election.
> >
> >Note: Point to be noted, the charter say about “everyone who voted in the previous election”, and does not say “last one year elections”
> >So: Two-thirds (2/3) of 106 = 70.667 (rounding figure is 71)
> >5.       Result: (http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments)
> >a.       According to the above statistics, following proposal has required 71 votes in favour:
> >i.e. Proposal 3, which was as follows:
> >----------------------------
> >On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
> >3. Proposal of Jeremy and co-proposers on updating the reference to the mailing list
> >Under "Working methods", update the address of the mailing list from governance at lists.cpsr.org to governance at lists.igcaucus.org.
> >----------------------------
> >b.      If 70.667  is rounded as 70, one more option may be qualified and that is Proposal 1.
> >On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
> >----------------------------
> >1. Proposal of Avri and co-proposers on Voting (regarding the affirmation of caucus members and the provision of an "abstain" option)
> >"Prior to voting the prospective voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form prior to voting). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with the results of the election.
> >
> >All ballots will include the ability for voters to abstain on any choice included on the ballot."
> >----------------------------
> >6.       There are some discussion on the mailing list that:
> >a.       the information related to Voters List Selection and significant information about the required Quorum (2/3 of voters) and observer members, voting and non-voting members were not communicated to the list,
> >b.      Survey Poll deadline intimation or reminders were not released, and
> >c.       Also requested to extend the same survey time
> >Remarks: Discussion about the selection of previous or current coordinators election, required quorum and some questions about the poll are on record. These observations or objections may be submitted to Appeal Team but there is no strong objection that could help to declare the current survey poll “INVALID” and to re-run the same. However, any objection from the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time, or due to any technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the given time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.
> >7.       Now, what’s next, how to proceed “The way forward:
> >There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options”
> >“Any options that may remain in the draft charter after thirty (30) days, will also be voted on as part of the charter acceptance process. In the case that there are options, the vote will be organized to first ask for acceptance, as described above, of the basic charter with options left unresolved. The same ballot will also include a vote on the options. For each case where there are options, the option that receives the most votes will be selected.”
> >There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options, we have to prepare a next Survey Poll for the acceptance of the latest form of the Charter, and we can arrange to resolve the issue of the remaining proposed amendments:
> >a.       by the remaining voters within this 30 day’s Survey Poll, the unresolved amendments may be submitted to the voting members asking that if they are not comfortable with the version of the charter, which of the following proposed option they would prefer to be included in the Charter.
> >b.      If we do not include, a fresh revised survey may be initiated through the same way, but… after the 30 day’s Survey Poll. We may expect a technical question “should we require the complete process from bottom, that requires “proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members”, I think this may be resolved after discussion on the mailing list.
> >Thank & Regards
> >
> >Imran Ahmed Shah
> >
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> >For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/954323b2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sun Feb 17 13:04:32 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:04:32 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <20130217184418.02984e89@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com> <74EAD1FA-AAB1-4C80-98E8-BC81B6A76AAE@acm.org> <20130217184418.02984e89@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <C8E3ECE2-AF01-4480-A97C-081E9CE33847@acm.org>

Hi,


On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:44, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> It would be very reasonable IMO to propose a charter amendment which
> replaces the 2/3 quorum with a 2/3 qualified majority of those
> answering the question for any particular charter amendment proposal,
> AND at the same time also removes the special category of "members for
> purposes of amending the charter" (i.e. charter amendment polls would
> be just like other votes in that each person who has been
> subscribed to the list for at least two months is given a voter
> account, and people affirm themselves to be caucus members as part of
> the process of participating in the poll.

I would argue against such a proposal as I beleive  it would give us control by those who cared about an issue.  In all cases we know that those who care about an issue are more likely to vote.  On things like charters, it it the continuity of the  group that counts, and thus I am quite happy with the fact that changing the charter is a challenge.    

It might also allow for a lot of people to join the group and spend their first two months working on a change to the charter.  Though the contradiction of affirming support of the charter on a vote to change the charter is appealing in a weird sort of way.

I see no problem with the current rule.  I find fault with myself for not having paid attention to how long the vote would be or for having neglected to be a pest and asking the coordinator's how the vote was going and for not reminding people to vote from time to time.  

We have succeeded in amending the charter before, we know it is possible. So this time, i see  it as a lesson, not a reason to change the charter.

avri


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

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

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

From avri at ella.com  Sun Feb 17 13:07:38 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:07:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <97C2EAEE-53F6-44AD-85BC-40CB241D2343@christopherwilkinson.eu>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com> <97C2EAEE-53F6-44AD-85BC-40CB241D2343@christopherwilkinson.eu>
Message-ID: <7DCBD7DD-0073-4F86-B0A1-B32CFAF659CF@ella.com>


On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:53, CW Mail wrote:

> -	I do not know whether I am on a list of voters
> 


http://igcaucus.org/list-members

It does not look like you are on the list.
Which means you probably did not vote in the recent election for co-coordinator.

avri


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

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

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

From avri at ella.com  Sun Feb 17 13:12:06 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:12:06 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <7DCBD7DD-0073-4F86-B0A1-B32CFAF659CF@ella.com>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com> <97C2EAEE-53F6-44AD-85BC-40CB241D2343@christopherwilkinson.eu> <7DCBD7DD-0073-4F86-B0A1-B32CFAF659CF@ella.com>
Message-ID: <0BC86C76-CCF7-4D2E-A152-76ABD0C3DD31@ella.com>

Ps.

Anticipating a possible next question.

At the bottom of every email from the list is a set of lines that includes:

"
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/
"

Further information about how the IGC works and other information about the stuff that is going on can be found there.
It is also usually discussed (sometimes to death) on the list itself.  Which is archived.

avri


On 17 Feb 2013, at 13:07, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:53, CW Mail wrote:
> 
>> -	I do not know whether I am on a list of voters
>> 
> 
> 
> http://igcaucus.org/list-members
> 
> It does not look like you are on the list.
> Which means you probably did not vote in the recent election for co-coordinator.
> 
> 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 nashton at ccianet.org  Sun Feb 17 13:12:03 2013
From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:12:03 +0100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <20130217175926.368fff6b@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCAB5D9@W8-EX10MB.unam.local>
 <13ce6242d55.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <5120C158.8000804@itforchange.net> <776F630D-0EE1-4D6E-B399-CA848D3F3AFC@acm.org>
 <20130217175926.368fff6b@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <-150051763646653227@unknownmsgid>

If you proceed along this line you should be aware that the Internet is far
from the only policy space in which MS is operating - quite the contrary.
One thing worth reading is the Cardozo Report (which is about CS engagement
in the UN system as a whole, but nevertheless will give you some
interesting perspectives.

If any of you haven't read it, I recommend it.

-- 
Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
Geneva Representative
Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA)
Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430

*Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here:
http://meetme.so/nashton*

Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling.

On 17 Feb 2013, at 17:59, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

I think coming up with a more developed set of working guidelines on

what it takes for a organization to reasonably consider its self as

providing a Multistakeholder environment would be a useful thing to

do.


+1

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/0c89e990/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Feb 17 13:30:49 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:30:49 -0800
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <C8E3ECE2-AF01-4480-A97C-081E9CE33847@acm.org>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com> <74EAD1FA-AAB1-4C80-98E8-BC81B6A76AAE@acm.org> <20130217184418.02984e89@quill.bollow.ch> <C8E3ECE2-AF01-4480-A97C-081E9CE33847@acm.org>
Message-ID: <005301ce0d3c$e9810a30$bc831e90$@gmail.com>

I know that these issues are important and I'm pleased that some people are
paying considerable attention to them but they are not something in which I
have a lot of interest or wish to give much attention...

 

That being said in a context where there are specific thresholds for vote
numbers with potential sanctions/costs (in time/attention) if these are not
achieved; the responsible behaviour is for me to vote even if I haven't
given a lot of attention and don't really understand the issues or their
significance.

 

As an alternative, could I suggest that we consider what is coming to be
called "delegative/liquid democracy
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy> " in these instances.
Thus someone like myself, concerned that the IGC operates effectively and
within an appropriate "constitutional" framework, but who doesn't have the
time or interest to follow these matters directly would "delegate" someone
whose broad position on these matters I agree with (let's say Norbert) to
represent/vote for me in these areas.  He would retain my vote until I
withdrew it or until a designated period of time had elapsed.

 

In this way, I believe we could ensure that snafus of failure to achieve
specific threshholds such as we are currently experiencing (and as I recall
to have been recurrent during the life of the IGC) would be avoided while
overall deliberative democracy would have been retained.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 10:05 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?

 

Hi,

 

 

On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:44, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> It would be very reasonable IMO to propose a charter amendment which 

> replaces the 2/3 quorum with a 2/3 qualified majority of those 

> answering the question for any particular charter amendment proposal, 

> AND at the same time also removes the special category of "members for 

> purposes of amending the charter" (i.e. charter amendment polls would 

> be just like other votes in that each person who has been subscribed 

> to the list for at least two months is given a voter account, and 

> people affirm themselves to be caucus members as part of the process 

> of participating in the poll.

 

I would argue against such a proposal as I beleive  it would give us control
by those who cared about an issue.  In all cases we know that those who care
about an issue are more likely to vote.  On things like charters, it it the
continuity of the  group that counts, and thus I am quite happy with the
fact that changing the charter is a challenge.    

 

It might also allow for a lot of people to join the group and spend their
first two months working on a change to the charter.  Though the
contradiction of affirming support of the charter on a vote to change the
charter is appealing in a weird sort of way.

 

I see no problem with the current rule.  I find fault with myself for not
having paid attention to how long the vote would be or for having neglected
to be a pest and asking the coordinator's how the vote was going and for not
reminding people to vote from time to time.  

 

We have succeeded in amending the charter before, we know it is possible. So
this time, i see  it as a lesson, not a reason to change the charter.

 

avri

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/6c89e252/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 13:37:19 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:37:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1361126239.76737.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

 
>Se puede saber quienes votaron... y quienes no
>Y que voten, los que no votaron...y si no desean votar o no quieren votar, 
>Se necesita una depuracion...
 
> You can tell who voted ... and those without
And to vote, those who did not vote ... and if they do not want to vote or will not vote, you have to see if you really want to continue as a member of the IGC ...
 
Coordinators or Dr Jeremy may provide information about the list of the voting members who did not cast their vote. (There statement is important).
 
Coordinadores o Dr Jeremy puede proporcionar información sobre la lista de los miembros votantes que no emitan su voto. (Hay declaración es importante)

Voting is open by the virtue of the charter:
La votación está abierta por la virtud de la Carta:
"All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators, with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal."
>
> hay que ver si realmente quieren seguir como member del CIG...
> you have to see if you really want to continue as a member of the IGC ...
There is nothing about their membership continuation. Because this s a voting for the proposed Charter Amendment only.

 

>________________________________
> From: José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com>
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 22:16
>Subject: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?
>  
>
>Se puede saber quienes votaron... y quienes no
>Y que voten, los que no votaron...y si no desean votar o no quieren votar, hay que ver si realmente quieren seguir como member del CIG...
>Se necesita una depuracion...
>
>
>
>
>Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche
>                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo 
>
>
>2013/2/17 Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
>
>
>>Ian,
>>Thanks, comments related to point 7 may be discussed further.
>>
>>I think, Proposer may simply initiate a formal request to the coordinators to provide a "benefit of doubt" and the fraction .667 is not a complete decimal value or represent a full vote. But it depends.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Imran
>>
>>------------------------------
>>
>>On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 11:36 AM PKT Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Imran,
>>>
>>>I think your analysis is very good and helpful. One caveat, however – the conditions you refer to in your point 7 refer to the original adoption of the Charter only, and not to amendments.
>>>
>>>But otherwise, your analysis I think correctly points out that Proposal 3 was actually adopted by the narrowest of margins, and proposal 1 misses out by only one vote (the other proposals are 6 and 9 votes short respectively).
>>>
>>>Your suggested option However, any objection from the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time, or due to any technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the given time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.
>>>
>>>In other words – if just one person is able to claim that they didnt receive the ballot, or were unable to complete the ballot for a technical reason, perhaps the co coordinators can allow a late ballot for persons thus affected.
>>>
>>>I’m not sure that will affect the proposals which are currently 6 and 9 votes short, but perhaps the proposal which is one vote short might be able to be amended.
>>>
>>>So I think your analysis might be very valuable in moving this forward. It’s up to the co coordinators to determine next steps but I think that’s useful information to assist them!
>>>
>>>Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>From: Imran Ahmed Shah
>>>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 4:18 PM
>>>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Norbert Bollow
>>>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>
>>>IGC Charter Amendment Conflict Resolution Note
>>>Date: 17th Feb 2013
>>>To:          IGC CS Members
>>>From:    Imran Ahmed Shah
>>>Dear IGC CS Members,
>>>With reference to the recent Formally Proposed Charter Amendment Proposals, we observed conflict to finalize and accept the survey poll results. I am not appeal team member or mediator but being an observer and IGC Voting Member, may perform a little bit effort about arbitration function. Let me try to rephrase the result and that will finally help to conclude the survey poll outcomes.
>>>1.       Recent Results of the IGC Charter Amendment is as follows:
>>>76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>>On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>>On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>>On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>2.       With reference to the Charter Amendments to approve, Charter says:
>>>“Amendments to the Charter
>>>This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter.”
>>>3.       Now as per Charter, we have to recall the voters of the previous election results:
>>>“There were 129 people who commenced the survey. One of them self-identified as not being a member of the Internet Governance Caucus, and one of them bailed out when asked that question. This leaves 127 people who self-identified. Of those, six people claimed that they had already voted in this year's election, so they were not offered the opportunity to vote again. Of the remaining 121, 106 took that opportunity.”
>>>4.       By reviewing the rule “everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter”, and result of the coordinators election, (as declared by Dr Jeremy), 106 used their vote in the previous election.
>>>
>>>Note: Point to be noted, the charter say about “everyone who voted in the previous election”, and does not say “last one year elections”
>>>So: Two-thirds (2/3) of 106 = 70.667 (rounding figure is 71)
>>>5.       Result: (http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments)
>>>a.       According to the above statistics, following proposal has required 71 votes in favour:
>>>i.e. Proposal 3, which was as follows:
>>>----------------------------
>>>On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>>3. Proposal of Jeremy and co-proposers on updating the reference to the mailing list
>>>Under "Working methods", update the address of the mailing list from governance at lists.cpsr.org to governance at lists.igcaucus.org.
>>>----------------------------
>>>b.      If 70.667  is rounded as 70, one more option may be qualified and that is Proposal 1.
>>>On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>>----------------------------
>>>1. Proposal of Avri and co-proposers on Voting (regarding the affirmation of caucus members and the provision of an "abstain" option)
>>>"Prior to voting the prospective voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form prior to voting). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with the results of the election.
>>>
>>>All ballots will include the ability for voters to abstain on any choice included on the ballot."
>>>----------------------------
>>>6.       There are some discussion on the mailing list that:
>>>a.       the information related to Voters List Selection and significant information about the required Quorum (2/3 of voters) and observer members, voting and non-voting members were not communicated to the list,
>>>b.      Survey Poll deadline intimation or reminders were not released, and
>>>c.       Also requested to extend the same survey time
>>>Remarks: Discussion about the selection of previous or current coordinators election, required quorum and some questions about the poll are on record. These observations or objections may be submitted to Appeal Team but there is no strong objection that could help to declare the current survey poll “INVALID” and to re-run the same. However, any objection from the members/voters who could not avail their ballot to cast their vote in time, or due to any technical reason faced by them to complete their survey poll in the given time period, may be addressed and should be compensated accordingly.
>>>7.       Now, what’s next, how to proceed “The way forward:
>>>There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options”
>>>“Any options that may remain in the draft charter after thirty (30) days, will also be voted on as part of the charter acceptance process. In the case that there are options, the vote will be organized to first ask for acceptance, as described above, of the basic charter with options left unresolved. The same ballot will also include a vote on the options. For each case where there are options, the option that receives the most votes will be selected.”
>>>There is provisioning in the charter regarding the unresolved options, we have to prepare a next Survey Poll for the acceptance of the latest form of the Charter, and we can arrange to resolve the issue of the remaining proposed amendments:
>>>a.       by the remaining voters within this 30 day’s Survey Poll, the unresolved amendments may be submitted to the voting members asking that if they are not comfortable with the version of the charter, which of the following proposed option they would prefer to be included in the Charter.
>>>b.      If we do not include, a fresh revised survey may be initiated through the same way, but… after the 30 day’s Survey Poll. We may expect a technical question “should we require the complete process from bottom, that requires “proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members”, I think this may be resolved after discussion on the mailing list.
>>>Thank & Regards
>>>
>>>Imran Ahmed Shah
>>>
>>>
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> 
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/e9f6db78/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 14:02:20 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:02:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <74EAD1FA-AAB1-4C80-98E8-BC81B6A76AAE@acm.org>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com> <74EAD1FA-AAB1-4C80-98E8-BC81B6A76AAE@acm.org>
Message-ID: <1361127740.83420.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Dear Avri,
 
>I still believe that the voting
list being pruned to the voters of the last election who had affirmed that they
subscribe to the IGC charter, is a pretty serious purging
Charter Affirmation is required to confirm and to
remain as a IGC Member, and also related to the coordinators election
voting.... or stated in the voting process as "Each person who is
subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be
given a voter account."
But interestingly,
under the "Amendments to the Charter", the definition of the
membership and/or member for voting the charter is different than the voting
member for election:
"The
membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most
currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in
the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter."
Even if there is
any mistake to elaborate the membership definition, it is necessary to follow
the Charter, however, this definition or confusion in the Charter may be amended
through similar process.
So, it is not I who tried to purge the list, I just elaborated what charter says.
 
I also understand that the voters list to cast their vote in Charter Amendment is not on the above basis, (only 106), but I used this figure for the qualification of the required 2/3 votes.
 
Imran

>________________________________
> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>To: IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 22:32
>Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?
>  
>
>On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:16, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote:
>
>> Se necesita una depuracion...
>
>
>I still beleive that the voting list being pruned to the voters of the last election who had affirmed that they subscribe to the IGC charter, is a pretty serious purging.
>
>How many organizations require a yearly affirmation such as that?
>
>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/f0b5e07c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 14:09:51 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:09:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <7DCBD7DD-0073-4F86-B0A1-B32CFAF659CF@ella.com>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com> <97C2EAEE-53F6-44AD-85BC-40CB241D2343@christopherwilkinson.eu> <7DCBD7DD-0073-4F86-B0A1-B32CFAF659CF@ella.com>
Message-ID: <1361128191.41621.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

The membership list is not updated after the recent coordinators election. Still needs to be updated.


>________________________________
> From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>To: IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:07
>Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?
>  
>
>On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:53, CW Mail wrote:
>
>> -    I do not know whether I am on a list of voters
>> 
>
>
>http://igcaucus.org/list-members
>
>It does not look like you are on the list.
>Which means you probably did not vote in the recent election for co-coordinator.
>
>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/01937cfb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Feb 17 14:12:20 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:12:20 -0800
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <1361127740.83420.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com> <74EAD1FA-AAB1-4C80-98E8-BC81B6A76AAE@acm.org> <1361127740.83420.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <009301ce0d42$bdc378f0$394a6ad0$@gmail.com>

Based on this below, my suggestion for a process of "delegation" for voting
would probably need to be formally renewed each year to be compliant.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:02 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?

 

Dear Avri,

 

>I still believe that the voting list being pruned to the voters of the last
election who had affirmed that they subscribe to the IGC charter, is a
pretty serious purging

Charter Affirmation is required to confirm and to remain as a IGC Member,
and also related to the coordinators election voting.... or stated in the
voting process as "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two
(2) months before the election will be given a voter account."

But interestingly, under the "Amendments to the Charter", the definition of
the membership and/or member for voting the charter is different than the
voting member for election:

"The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most
currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted
in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter."

Even if there is any mistake to elaborate the membership definition, it is
necessary to follow the Charter, however, this definition or confusion in
the Charter may be amended through similar process.

So, it is not I who tried to purge the list, I just elaborated what charter
says.

 

I also understand that the voters list to cast their vote in Charter
Amendment is not on the above basis, (only 106), but I used this figure for
the qualification of the required 2/3 votes.

 

Imran

From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
To: IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 22:32
Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?



On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:16, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote:

> Se necesita una depuracion...


I still beleive that the voting list being pruned to the voters of the last
election who had affirmed that they subscribe to the IGC charter, is a
pretty serious purging.

How many organizations require a yearly affirmation such as that?

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/05095bb8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Sun Feb 17 14:13:21 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:13:21 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <1361128191.41621.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com> <97C2EAEE-53F6-44AD-85BC-40CB241D2343@christopherwilkinson.eu> <7DCBD7DD-0073-4F86-B0A1-B32CFAF659CF@ella.com> <1361128191.41621.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1F88578B-480B-4C38-8447-85D8ED1797EB@acm.org>


On 17 Feb 2013, at 14:09, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:

> The membership list is not updated after the recent coordinators election. Still needs to be updated.

oh. 
oops.

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 ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 14:17:26 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:17:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <1F88578B-480B-4C38-8447-85D8ED1797EB@acm.org>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com> <97C2EAEE-53F6-44AD-85BC-40CB241D2343@christopherwilkinson.eu> <7DCBD7DD-0073-4F86-B0A1-B32CFAF659CF@ella.com> <1361128191.41621.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1F88578B-480B-4C38-8447-85D8ED1797EB@acm.org>
Message-ID: <1361128646.46254.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

I think because there no reference about the election date/year. 
However, I can see some new names, that were not there but now are on the list.


>________________________________
> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>To: IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 0:13
>Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?
>  
>
>On 17 Feb 2013, at 14:09, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:
>
>> The membership list is not updated after the recent coordinators election. Still needs to be updated.
>
>oh. 
>oops.
>
>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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/8aa85ab1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jstyre at jstyre.com  Sun Feb 17 14:19:11 2013
From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:19:11 -0800
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <1361128191.41621.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com> <97C2EAEE-53F6-44AD-85BC-40CB241D2343@christopherwilkinson.eu> <7DCBD7DD-0073-4F86-B0A1-B32CFAF659CF@ella.com> <1361128191.41621.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <008f01ce0d43$ab6ab4b0$02401e10$@jstyre.com>

I believe it has been.  I’m on the list (jstyre), but wouldn’t have been before.

 

--

James S. Tyre

Law Offices of James S. Tyre

10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512

Culver City, CA 90230-4969

310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)

jstyre at jstyre.com

Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation

https://www.eff.org

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org]
On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:10 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?

 

The membership list is not updated after the recent coordinators election. Still needs to
be updated.

From: Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
To: IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:07
Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?



On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:53, CW Mail wrote:

> -    I do not know whether I am on a list of voters
> 


http://igcaucus.org/list-members

It does not look like you are on the list.
Which means you probably did not vote in the recent election for co-coordinator.

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/d4a5c270/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Sun Feb 17 14:58:07 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:58:07 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=BFVotaron_=22fantasmas=22=3F?=
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLthrp6+i61heFZyMtyc6YOPX8CiD_L79wJ9+eBf=AvTsA@mail.gmail.com>

Tiene que haber una renovacion de la lista, para que no voten los
"fantasmas"
Tenemos que saber cuantos somos, de donde somos. etc., etc.,
Tenemos que ser mas democraticos
Tenemos que dejar los "*grupitos favorecidos*"

 *¡DEMOCRACIA...YA!

*

*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/17 James S. Tyre <jstyre at jstyre.com>

> I believe it has been.  I’m on the list (jstyre), but wouldn’t have been
> before.****
>
> ** **
>
> --****
>
> James S. Tyre****
>
> Law Offices of James S. Tyre****
>
> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512****
>
> Culver City, CA 90230-4969****
>
> 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)****
>
> jstyre at jstyre.com****
>
> Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation****
>
> https://www.eff.org****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Imran Ahmed Shah
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:10 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria
>
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?****
>
> ** **
>
> The membership list is not updated after the recent coordinators election.
> Still needs to be updated.****
>
> *From:* Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
> *To:* IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:07
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?****
>
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:53, CW Mail wrote:
>
> > -    I do not know whether I am on a list of voters
> >
>
>
> http://igcaucus.org/list-members
>
> It does not look like you are on the list.
> Which means you probably did not vote in the recent election for
> co-coordinator.
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/18993258/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 17 15:10:06 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:10:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
Message-ID: <1361131806.8821.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>


Your proposal is very good and is adopted in many organisations also has a legal value, where it is called as "Proxy Vote".

But as far as "Information Security" is concerned, the proxy option may be misused easily. Specially in virtual community cases where the physical identification is not available. 
------------------------------
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 12:12 AM PKT michael gurstein wrote:

>Based on this below, my suggestion for a process of "delegation" for voting
>would probably need to be formally renewed each year to be compliant.
>
> 
>
>M
>
> 
>
>From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah
>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:02 AM
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria
>Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?
>
> 
>
>Dear Avri,
>
> 
>
>>I still believe that the voting list being pruned to the voters of the last
>election who had affirmed that they subscribe to the IGC charter, is a
>pretty serious purging
>
>Charter Affirmation is required to confirm and to remain as a IGC Member,
>and also related to the coordinators election voting.... or stated in the
>voting process as "Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two
>(2) months before the election will be given a voter account."
>
>But interestingly, under the "Amendments to the Charter", the definition of
>the membership and/or member for voting the charter is different than the
>voting member for election:
>
>"The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most
>currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted
>in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter."
>
>Even if there is any mistake to elaborate the membership definition, it is
>necessary to follow the Charter, however, this definition or confusion in
>the Charter may be amended through similar process.
>
>So, it is not I who tried to purge the list, I just elaborated what charter
>says.
>
> 
>
>I also understand that the voters list to cast their vote in Charter
>Amendment is not on the above basis, (only 106), but I used this figure for
>the qualification of the required 2/3 votes.
>
> 
>
>Imran
>
>From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>To: IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 22:32
>Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?
>
>
>
>On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:16, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote:
>
>> Se necesita una depuracion...
>
>
>I still beleive that the voting list being pruned to the voters of the last
>election who had affirmed that they subscribe to the IGC charter, is a
>pretty serious purging.
>
>How many organizations require a yearly affirmation such as that?
>
>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  Sun Feb 17 15:22:54 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:22:54 -0800
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <1361131806.8821.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1361131806.8821.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000901ce0d4c$9a2562a0$ce7027e0$@gmail.com>

As I understand it Imran, the difference with "proxy voting" is that with
"delegation" one is giving over one's vote in a range of associated
instances (for example in our case voting with respect to modifications in
the IGC "constitution") rather than on an item by item basis.

Since the individual votes would be public the issue of "information
security" would probably be no greater than currently and could arguably be
seen as being more secure since individual votes could be challenged by
anyone and particularly by those from whom they were "delegated".

(But I am by no means an expert on this and hopefully there are some here
who have more knowledge/experience than I do... BTW, the practical use of
this has been pioneered I believe by the various Pirate Parties in their
internal deliberations and decision making.)

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Imran Ahmed Shah [mailto:ias_pk at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 12:10 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein at gmail.com; avri at acm.org
Subject: RE: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?


Your proposal is very good and is adopted in many organisations also has a
legal value, where it is called as "Proxy Vote".

But as far as "Information Security" is concerned, the proxy option may be
misused easily. Specially in virtual community cases where the physical
identification is not available. 
------------------------------
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 12:12 AM PKT michael gurstein wrote:

>Based on this below, my suggestion for a process of "delegation" for 
>voting would probably need to be formally renewed each year to be
compliant.
>
> 
>
>M
>
> 
>
>From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed 
>Shah
>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:02 AM
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria
>Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?
>
> 
>
>Dear Avri,
>
> 
>
>>I still believe that the voting list being pruned to the voters of the 
>>last
>election who had affirmed that they subscribe to the IGC charter, is a 
>pretty serious purging
>
>Charter Affirmation is required to confirm and to remain as a IGC 
>Member, and also related to the coordinators election voting.... or 
>stated in the voting process as "Each person who is subscribed to the 
>list at least two
>(2) months before the election will be given a voter account."
>
>But interestingly, under the "Amendments to the Charter", the 
>definition of the membership and/or member for voting the charter is 
>different than the voting member for election:
>
>"The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the 
>most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone 
>who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the
charter."
>
>Even if there is any mistake to elaborate the membership definition, it 
>is necessary to follow the Charter, however, this definition or 
>confusion in the Charter may be amended through similar process.
>
>So, it is not I who tried to purge the list, I just elaborated what 
>charter says.
>
> 
>
>I also understand that the voters list to cast their vote in Charter 
>Amendment is not on the above basis, (only 106), but I used this figure 
>for the qualification of the required 2/3 votes.
>
> 
>
>Imran
>
>From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>To: IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 22:32
>Subject: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?
>
>
>
>On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:16, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote:
>
>> Se necesita una depuracion...
>
>
>I still beleive that the voting list being pruned to the voters of the 
>last election who had affirmed that they subscribe to the IGC charter, 
>is a pretty serious purging.
>
>How many organizations require a yearly affirmation such as that?
>
>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 amedinagomez at gmail.com  Sun Feb 17 16:37:08 2013
From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:37:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFVotaron_=22fantasmas=22=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLthrp6+i61heFZyMtyc6YOPX8CiD_L79wJ9+eBf=AvTsA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAYFVLthrp6+i61heFZyMtyc6YOPX8CiD_L79wJ9+eBf=AvTsA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM-_sgiOkK8BXHae_QGjydS_ZuAmcLBHbSKn-0w_Pw89ZSN3xw@mail.gmail.com>

Para que incluyan mi nombre en la lista.
Estado Activo.
Antonio Medina Gómez
Presidente
Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet


2013/2/17 José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com>

> Tiene que haber una renovacion de la lista, para que no voten los
> "fantasmas"
> Tenemos que saber cuantos somos, de donde somos. etc., etc.,
> Tenemos que ser mas democraticos
> Tenemos que dejar los "*grupitos favorecidos*"
>
>  *¡DEMOCRACIA...YA!
>
> *
>
> *Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
> *                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
>
>
> 2013/2/17 James S. Tyre <jstyre at jstyre.com>
>
>> I believe it has been.  I’m on the list (jstyre), but wouldn’t have been
>> before.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> --****
>>
>> James S. Tyre****
>>
>> Law Offices of James S. Tyre****
>>
>> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512****
>>
>> Culver City, CA 90230-4969****
>>
>> 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)****
>>
>> jstyre at jstyre.com****
>>
>> Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation****
>>
>> https://www.eff.org****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Imran Ahmed Shah
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:10 AM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> The membership list is not updated after the recent coordinators
>> election. Still needs to be updated.****
>>
>> *From:* Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>> *To:* IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, 17 February 2013, 23:07
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?****
>>
>>
>>
>> On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:53, CW Mail wrote:
>>
>> > -    I do not know whether I am on a list of voters
>> >
>>
>>
>> http://igcaucus.org/list-members
>>
>> It does not look like you are on the list.
>> Which means you probably did not vote in the recent election for
>> co-coordinator.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ****
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130217/8cb1c6e3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From apisan at unam.mx  Sun Feb 17 20:25:15 2013
From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:25:15 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <-150051763646653227@unknownmsgid>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCAB5D9@W8-EX10MB.unam.local>
 <13ce6242d55.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <5120C158.8000804@itforchange.net>
 <776F630D-0EE1-4D6E-B399-CA848D3F3AFC@acm.org>
 <20130217175926.368fff6b@quill.bollow.ch>,<-150051763646653227@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCADBD4@W8-EX10MB.unam.local>

Hi,

to add a voice here. It does read as somewhat paradoxal that some in this list look to narrow the definitions of "civil society worthiness" while at the same time claim to espouse diversity.

The latest version I am beginning to glean by connecting the dots is that those who acquire and share technical and factual knowledge about the object of governance may be unacceptable because they work for a company - or let it be known, actually. Others may be called unacceptable because they do not express themselves explicitly as anti-makert (for some value of "anti-market".)

So, a professor of economics who does not believe that the prievet sector and market factors may have an incidence on Internet Governance may also be found lacking in civil society credentials?

As Nick has pointed out, there are many spaces that operate policy making and governance in some or other multi-stakeholder form. The environment is but one, and particularly worthy of study, both for the similarities and the contrasts, and noen the less for its history. Multistakeholder environmental governance predates Internet governance by a few decades. Water resources, fisheries, why, even some forms of labor governance are under these optics.

I think that this particular sub-sub-sub-group of civil society may be approaching a watershed moment. Claims for ideological purity have stepped up pretty steeply.

And it may be that some people won't walk under yet one more set of Caudian forks leading to "pensee unique" of any brand.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico



+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Nick Ashton-Hart [nashton at ccianet.org]
Enviado el: domingo, 17 de febrero de 2013 12:12
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Asunto: Re: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution, consultation and MAG meeting)

If you proceed along this line you should be aware that the Internet is far from the only policy space in which MS is operating - quite the contrary. One thing worth reading is the Cardozo Report (which is about CS engagement in the UN system as a whole, but nevertheless will give you some interesting perspectives.

If any of you haven't read it, I recommend it.

--
Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
Geneva Representative
Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA)
Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430

Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton

Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling.

On 17 Feb 2013, at 17:59, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch<mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:

I think coming up with a more developed set of working guidelines on
what it takes for a organization to reasonably consider its self as
providing a Multistakeholder environment would be a useful thing to
do.

+1

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/700e43d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From apisan at unam.mx  Sun Feb 17 20:26:38 2013
From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:26:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuienes_votaron=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <C8E3ECE2-AF01-4480-A97C-081E9CE33847@acm.org>
References: <CAAYFVLsHoD9UZO4FPRhYan4P3RqEuW0bJ4Dtd5iPS87=x1-HTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <74EAD1FA-AAB1-4C80-98E8-BC81B6A76AAE@acm.org>
 <20130217184418.02984e89@quill.bollow.ch>,<C8E3ECE2-AF01-4480-A97C-081E9CE33847@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCADBE6@W8-EX10MB.unam.local>

Avri,

I think your concern is well placed. It is almost mathematical and it spirals into a "de necessario" monotonously decreasing subset of voters.

Alejandro Pisanty


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico



+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________________
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Avri Doria [avri at acm.org]
Enviado el: domingo, 17 de febrero de 2013 12:04
Hasta: IGC
Asunto: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?

Hi,


On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:44, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> It would be very reasonable IMO to propose a charter amendment which
> replaces the 2/3 quorum with a 2/3 qualified majority of those
> answering the question for any particular charter amendment proposal,
> AND at the same time also removes the special category of "members for
> purposes of amending the charter" (i.e. charter amendment polls would
> be just like other votes in that each person who has been
> subscribed to the list for at least two months is given a voter
> account, and people affirm themselves to be caucus members as part of
> the process of participating in the poll.

I would argue against such a proposal as I beleive  it would give us control by those who cared about an issue.  In all cases we know that those who care about an issue are more likely to vote.  On things like charters, it it the continuity of the  group that counts, and thus I am quite happy with the fact that changing the charter is a challenge.

It might also allow for a lot of people to join the group and spend their first two months working on a change to the charter.  Though the contradiction of affirming support of the charter on a vote to change the charter is appealing in a weird sort of way.

I see no problem with the current rule.  I find fault with myself for not having paid attention to how long the vote would be or for having neglected to be a pest and asking the coordinator's how the vote was going and for not reminding people to vote from time to time.

We have succeeded in amending the charter before, we know it is possible. So this time, i see  it as a lesson, not a reason to change the charter.

avri



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

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Feb 18 03:16:24 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:16:24 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <13ce62efbc4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <rGWTjYYrT5HRFADV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <maJQUThWM7HRFADR@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <13ce62efbc4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <tV1iX4JYNeIRFALT@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<13ce62efbc4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at 
08:55:09 on Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
writes
>The ambiguity starts when you need to tie an IP to an actual customers 
>name which you can only do after a subpoena from law enforcement

That isn't ambiguity, it's a matter of lawful process. Here in the UK 
the police can make such enquiries from an ISP without a subpoena from a 
court. However, they first have to be investigating a crime, which is 
why it was important to clarify what forms of [cyber]stalking are in 
fact a crime.

>On 16 February 2013 9:55:58 PM Roland Perry 
><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> In message
>> <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at
>> 20:08:31 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>> writes
>> >Both resolve only to an IP address, which despite working party 19
>> >claims should not be considered personal data
>>
>> It's not about 100% unambiguous personal data, it's finding the
>> perpetrator.
>>
>> Most are what we call "loners", so an IP address is often sufficient,
>> although in practice knowing the real name behind a social media account
>> is usually good enough (when people set up the account, or their WHOIS,
>> they generally didn't realise they should lie about their name, address,
>> phone number etc just in case they became a fugitive later).
>>
>> And the ones who aren't "loners" may also narrow the suspects down to
>> (eg) a household with a man and wife and their 5 year old child. At that
>> point it's usually obvious which of them is the perpetrator.
>>
>> ps IP Addresses are often enough personal data that all processing of
>> them should be *treated as if* they are personal data. In other words,
>> protected by law (with relevant exceptions for prosecuting offenders)
>> even when it turns out they are ambiguous.
>>
>> >On 16 February 2013 7:47:15 PM Roland Perry
>> ><roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ at mail.gmail.com>, at
>> >> 14:45:50 on Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes
>> >> >> So some opposing views (within civil society, because both stalker and
>> >> >> stalked are ordinary citizens and therefore members of civil
>> society) have
>> >> >> not yet been resolved.
>> >> >
>> >> >IMO the appropriate place for such conflicts between conflicting
>> >> >legitimate concerns to be resolved is national parliaments and the
>> >> >corresponding polititical processes.
>> >>
>> >> But some of the remedies can only be applied at a global level (eg
>> >> traceability via WHOIS records, or from international "cloud" service
>> >> providers).
>> >> --
>> >> Roland Perry
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >____________________________________________________________
>> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> >To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> >For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>>
>
>

-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Feb 18 03:30:42 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:30:42 +0800
Subject: [governance] Note on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD
 working group on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <5121E6B2.6000401@ciroap.org>

Apologies if this has already been posted here and I missed it, but
Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chair of the CSTD, has recently released a
Note on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD working group on
enhanced cooperation, which is available here:

http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2013d02_Composition.pdf

Anriette of APC has been nominated as the focal point for civil
society.  So I suppose that our nomcom will have to communicate its
recommendations through her.  Anriette is of course a suitable choice,
but the fact that the IGC was not chosen as the focal point could also
be considered to be a bit of a slight on us.  Oh well.

The deadline for nominations is 8 March 2013 - which fits in nicely with
our own nomcom's timetable - with the final composition to be announced
between 11-15 March.  The first meeting of the Working Group is to be
held in April-May, and a second on 30-31 May.

Meanwhile, I have published an article with my thoughts in Digital News
Asia at
http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states,
which summarises a longer version, serialised in three parts at
http://jere.my/l/58, and which in turn will be the basis for my remarks
at a Best Bits session next week in Paris for the WSIS+10 Review Event.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

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

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/77392b85/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb 18 04:17:28 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:47:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <tV1iX4JYNeIRFALT@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com> <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ@mail.gmail.com> <rGWTjYYrT5HRFADV@internetpolicyagency.com> <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <maJQUThWM7HRFADR@internetpolicyagency.com> <1
 3ce62efbc4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <tV1iX4JYNeIRFALT@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <E0F19B12-BEC5-42B6-86C3-B35B69556466@hserus.net>

I do this for a living .. so I can say you're correct

My point is that a bare IP address is no use without accompanying subpoena'd information from the ISP linking it to a customer's name and address

So, all the claims which I see touted by various privacy groups "ip addresses are personal data" - and more so by the EU - just don't pass my criteria for being based on facts.

There are two actions when a cyberstalker situation is involved

1. The ISP can determine that his actions are in violation of their acceptable use policies and then end their relationship with him as a customer - suspend his account from the service, which is a contractual relationship with specific clauses on how such a relationship can be ended.

2. The affected person complains to the police, who believe they have a case they can take before a prosecutor with a reasonable chance of getting a conviction - so they subpoena the ISP and get customer data about the stalker, which they use in making an arrest.

Either case - the customer information is not disclosed to any third party (even law enforcement) without due process being followed, and a stalker's IP address looks just the same as your IP, or the IP of a local church's broadband connection - there's every possibility that a dynamic IP could be assigned to the stalker, then to you, and then to the church, so IP + date and time stamp of the incident need to be tied to the ISP's login and billing data - which you're only going to get with a subpoena from law enforcement..

--srs (iPad)

On 18-Feb-2013, at 13:46, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <13ce62efbc4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at 08:55:09 on Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> writes
>> The ambiguity starts when you need to tie an IP to an actual customers name which you can only do after a subpoena from law enforcement
> 
> That isn't ambiguity, it's a matter of lawful process. Here in the UK the police can make such enquiries from an ISP without a subpoena from a court. However, they first have to be investigating a crime, which is why it was important to clarify what forms of [cyber]stalking are in fact a crime.
> 

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

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

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

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Feb 18 05:31:40 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:31:40 +0000
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <E0F19B12-BEC5-42B6-86C3-B35B69556466@hserus.net>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <rGWTjYYrT5HRFADV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <maJQUThWM7HRFADR@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <tV1iX4JYNeIRFALT@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <E0F19B12-BEC5-42B6-86C3-B35B69556466@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <PsQ6J1XMMgIRFANQ@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <E0F19B12-BEC5-42B6-86C3-B35B69556466 at hserus.net>, at 
14:47:28 on Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
writes
>I do this for a living .. so I can say you're correct

That's good to hear, because I have also done this for a living.

>My point is that a bare IP address is no use without accompanying 
>subpoena'd information from the ISP linking it to a customer's name and 
>address

In some cases it is of use without police intervention, because the IP 
address can be correlated with other information (for example emails the 
victim has received, one of whose senders might be the stalker).

>So, all the claims which I see touted by various privacy groups "ip 
>addresses are personal data" - and more so by the EU - just don't pass 
>my criteria for being based on facts.

The fact is that if *some* IP addresses are immediately traceable back 
to an inividual then that means *all* IP addresses must be treated *as 
if* they were personal data (because you can't treat some differently 
from others, and the European view is to take the most conservative 
approach). I'm aware that other jurisdictions lean more towards the idea 
that "if I can find just *one* IP address that doesn't lead back to an 
individual, then *none* of them can possibly be considered personal 
data".

>There are two actions when a cyberstalker situation is involved
>
>1. The ISP can determine that his actions are in violation of their 
>acceptable use policies and then end their relationship with him as a 
>customer - suspend his account from the service, which is a contractual 
>relationship with specific clauses on how such a relationship can be 
>ended.

That's not going to happen unless the ISP receives a complaint, and if 
we are talking about an access ISP then the victim will probably not 
have an IP address, only the social network site will have that, and 
because it's "personal data" they will not release it to the victim.

However, revealing the name (or other identifying details) of the 
perpetrator should be just as useful in pointing the victim in the right 
direction.

>2. The affected person complains to the police, who believe they have a 
>case they can take before a prosecutor with a reasonable chance of 
>getting a conviction - so they subpoena the ISP and get customer data 
>about the stalker, which they use in making an arrest.

In the UK there's no subpoena or prosecutor involved. The police have 
the right to ask for this information without.

>Either case - the customer information is not disclosed to any third 
>party (even law enforcement) without due process being followed, and a 
>stalker's IP address looks just the same as your IP,

Knowing the IP address can be helpful, although once again not 100% 
conclusive it can often reveal what country the perpetrator is from, and 
which ISP they use.

> or the IP of a local church's broadband connection

Or the IP of a business where the perpetrator works. Knowing the Church 
or the Business is often enough to work out who the perpetrator is - 
remember most stalkers are known to their victims (although not all of 
them are).

>- there's every possibility that a dynamic IP could be assigned to the 
>stalker, then to you, and then to the church, so IP + date and time 
>stamp of the incident need to be tied to the ISP's login and billing 
>data - which you're only going to get with a subpoena from law 
>enforcement..

Dynamic IP and carrier-grade NAT (as used by most mobile networks in the 
UK) make things more difficult, but none of this is a reason why IP 
Addresses should not be regarded as personal data (in the European/OECD 
model).

>On 18-Feb-2013, at 13:46, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>
>> In message 
>><13ce62efbc4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at 
>>08:55:09 on Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
>><suresh at hserus.net> writes
>>> The ambiguity starts when you need to tie an IP to an actual 
>>>customers name which you can only do after a subpoena from law 
>>>enforcement
>>
>> That isn't ambiguity, it's a matter of lawful process. Here in the UK 
>>the police can make such enquiries from an ISP without a subpoena from 
>>a court. However, they first have to be investigating a crime, which 
>>is why it was important to clarify what forms of [cyber]stalking are 
>>in fact a crime.
>>

-- 
Roland Perry

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

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

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb 18 05:56:58 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:26:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <PsQ6J1XMMgIRFANQ@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net>
 <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org>
 <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com>
 <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch>
 <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid>
 <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch>
 <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org>
 <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch>
 <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net>
 <3SdUWaOGv4HRFAR6@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <CALrvCLDiFxGBQW4ECHOY0W8y+sTc0uEHPDst=GN=kAx1Y5RLnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <rGWTjYYrT5HRFADV@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <13ce371151b.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <maJQUThWM7HRFADR@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <tV1iX4JYNeIRFALT@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <E0F19B12-BEC5-42B6-86C3-B35B69556466@hserus.net>
 <PsQ6J1XMMgIRFANQ@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <13cecf3011f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

Unless you have customer data you don't have much proof. Especially in 
a dynamic ip or cgn environment

But this is a topic on which we can agree to disagree and you do make 
valid points

--srs (htc one x)



On 18 February 2013 4:01:40 PM Roland Perry 
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message <E0F19B12-BEC5-42B6-86C3-B35B69556466 at hserus.net>, at
> 14:47:28 on Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> writes
> >I do this for a living .. so I can say you're correct
>
> That's good to hear, because I have also done this for a living.
>
> >My point is that a bare IP address is no use without accompanying
> >subpoena'd information from the ISP linking it to a customer's name and
> >address
>
> In some cases it is of use without police intervention, because the IP
> address can be correlated with other information (for example emails the
> victim has received, one of whose senders might be the stalker).
>
> >So, all the claims which I see touted by various privacy groups "ip
> >addresses are personal data" - and more so by the EU - just don't pass
> >my criteria for being based on facts.
>
> The fact is that if *some* IP addresses are immediately traceable back
> to an inividual then that means *all* IP addresses must be treated *as
> if* they were personal data (because you can't treat some differently
> from others, and the European view is to take the most conservative
> approach). I'm aware that other jurisdictions lean more towards the idea
> that "if I can find just *one* IP address that doesn't lead back to an
> individual, then *none* of them can possibly be considered personal
> data".
>
> >There are two actions when a cyberstalker situation is involved
> >
> >1. The ISP can determine that his actions are in violation of their
> >acceptable use policies and then end their relationship with him as a
> >customer - suspend his account from the service, which is a contractual
> >relationship with specific clauses on how such a relationship can be
> >ended.
>
> That's not going to happen unless the ISP receives a complaint, and if
> we are talking about an access ISP then the victim will probably not
> have an IP address, only the social network site will have that, and
> because it's "personal data" they will not release it to the victim.
>
> However, revealing the name (or other identifying details) of the
> perpetrator should be just as useful in pointing the victim in the right
> direction.
>
> >2. The affected person complains to the police, who believe they have a
> >case they can take before a prosecutor with a reasonable chance of
> >getting a conviction - so they subpoena the ISP and get customer data
> >about the stalker, which they use in making an arrest.
>
> In the UK there's no subpoena or prosecutor involved. The police have
> the right to ask for this information without.
>
> >Either case - the customer information is not disclosed to any third
> >party (even law enforcement) without due process being followed, and a
> >stalker's IP address looks just the same as your IP,
>
> Knowing the IP address can be helpful, although once again not 100%
> conclusive it can often reveal what country the perpetrator is from, and
> which ISP they use.
>
> > or the IP of a local church's broadband connection
>
> Or the IP of a business where the perpetrator works. Knowing the Church
> or the Business is often enough to work out who the perpetrator is -
> remember most stalkers are known to their victims (although not all of
> them are).
>
> >- there's every possibility that a dynamic IP could be assigned to the
> >stalker, then to you, and then to the church, so IP + date and time
> >stamp of the incident need to be tied to the ISP's login and billing
> >data - which you're only going to get with a subpoena from law
> >enforcement..
>
> Dynamic IP and carrier-grade NAT (as used by most mobile networks in the
> UK) make things more difficult, but none of this is a reason why IP
> Addresses should not be regarded as personal data (in the European/OECD
> model).
>
> >On 18-Feb-2013, at 13:46, Roland Perry 
> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In message
> >><13ce62efbc4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0 at hserus.net>, at
> >>08:55:09 on Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >><suresh at hserus.net> writes
> >>> The ambiguity starts when you need to tie an IP to an actual
> >>>customers name which you can only do after a subpoena from law
> >>>enforcement
> >>
> >> That isn't ambiguity, it's a matter of lawful process. Here in the UK
> >>the police can make such enquiries from an ISP without a subpoena from
> >>a court. However, they first have to be investigating a crime, which
> >>is why it was important to clarify what forms of [cyber]stalking are
> >>in fact a crime.
> >>
>
> --
> Roland Perry
>



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

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

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

From tracey at traceynaughton.com  Mon Feb 18 05:59:23 2013
From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:59:23 +1100
Subject: [governance] Civil Society (was Re: caucus contribution,
 consultation and MAG meeting)
In-Reply-To: <20130217175926.368fff6b@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAFabd1LWEO15vcOp0+Jkx_EFJeH1r-ruEThz9b9JeCiMF6=3Bw@mail.gmail.com> <20130211225059.6f27f596@quill.bollow.ch> <511A3E8D.3000203@itforchange.net> <CAFabd1KRFW0nPAyKM9CSNE-p62WPQUmKVuPdNSrUT8eFf26v-A@mail.gmail.com> <B6DA1DD5-6C28-4CB3-ACF9-70675EB32944@acm.org> <C35B59E1-7C28-4EDB-AB71-38DE81E2E848@ella.com> <20130212201924.63357523@quill.bollow.ch> <7260797493053990574@unknownmsgid> <20130213120048.1df21ac9@quill.bollow.ch> <DC891002-5AFD-473D-91AE-0E6E4CAA9FBA@ccianet.org> <20130213162527.1c2a9934@quill.bollow.ch> <CACAaNxi4qOO7p3-aOMQ3oV5xxRyiWBd0hG-SqrBKvyRF1WWQOw@mail.gmail.com> <20130213174442.1b886421@quill.bollow.ch> <edBuVJ01iJHRFAkD@internetpolicyagency.com> <511F48D6.3050506@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DCAB5D9@W8-EX10MB.unam.local> <13ce6242d55.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <5120C158.8000804@itforchange.net> <776F630D-0EE1-4D6E-B399-CA848D3F3AFC@acm.org> <20130217175926.368fff6b@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <553CCD8E-B149-4CA0-B719-DE387266C07B@traceynaughton.com>

+1 great plan to have a working definition. Tracey

On 18 Feb 2013, at 3:59 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I think coming up with a more developed set of working guidelines on
> what it takes for a organization to reasonably consider its self as
> providing a Multistakeholder environment would be a useful thing to
> do.

+1

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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 06:41:16 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:41:16 +1200
Subject: [governance] Note on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD
 working group on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <5121E6B2.6000401@ciroap.org>
References: <5121E6B2.6000401@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDyLBjAiNhhcJ46GcYgUF0qNDGXN7tNFpR8SnTqL-mv4w@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Jeremy.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

>  Apologies if this has already been posted here and I missed it, but
> Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chair of the CSTD, has recently released a Note
> on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD working group on enhanced
> cooperation, which is available here:
>
> http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2013d02_Composition.pdf
>
> Anriette of APC has been nominated as the focal point for civil society.
> So I suppose that our nomcom will have to communicate its recommendations
> through her.  Anriette is of course a suitable choice, but the fact that
> the IGC was not chosen as the focal point could also be considered to be a
> bit of a slight on us.  Oh well.
>
> The deadline for nominations is 8 March 2013 - which fits in nicely with
> our own nomcom's timetable - with the final composition to be announced
> between 11-15 March.  The first meeting of the Working Group is to be held
> in April-May, and a second on 30-31 May.
>
> Meanwhile, I have published an article with my thoughts in Digital News
> Asia at
> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states,
> which summarises a longer version, serialised in three parts at
> http://jere.my/l/58, and which in turn will be the basis for my remarks
> at a Best Bits session next week in Paris for the WSIS+10 Review Event.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/cbf15844/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Feb 18 08:08:50 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:08:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] Note on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD
 working group on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <5121E6B2.6000401@ciroap.org>
References: <5121E6B2.6000401@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20130218140850.68421aed@quill.bollow.ch>

Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> Anriette of APC has been nominated as the focal point for civil
> society.  So I suppose that our nomcom will have to communicate its
> recommendations through her.  Anriette is of course a suitable choice,
> but the fact that the IGC was not chosen as the focal point could also
> be considered to be a bit of a slight on us.  Oh well.

I wouldn't interpret this as a sleight. APC has been very active and
visible in the area of seeking multistakeholder dialogue specifically
on the enhanced cooperation topic. I don't recall IGC doing anything
visible yet to demonstrate interest in this topic. Of course the CSTD
Chair will want to select someone as "focal point" who has been seen
as having such a demonstrated interest.

I would propose that the IGC recommendations (as selected by our
NomCom) should be communicated to Anriette and in addition also
directly to CSTD, with an explanation of what the IGC is and what the
NomCom process does, etc. At this stage, the only thing that our
Caucus can do to be visible is to communicate.

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From avri at acm.org  Mon Feb 18 08:43:49 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:43:49 -0500
Subject: [governance] Note on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD
 working group on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <20130218140850.68421aed@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <5121E6B2.6000401@ciroap.org> <20130218140850.68421aed@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <9846F9AB-A9F0-4AB5-97AD-A739EF07BB65@acm.org>

Hi,

Can I recommend that our nomcom put its announcement out a few time between now and its deadline to make sure lots of people see it and are reminded to apply.  We have seen that one message to the list is not necessarily sufficient to get through to many of us.

thanks

avri

On 18 Feb 2013, at 08:08, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
>> Anriette of APC has been nominated as the focal point for civil
>> society.  So I suppose that our nomcom will have to communicate its
>> recommendations through her.  Anriette is of course a suitable choice,
>> but the fact that the IGC was not chosen as the focal point could also
>> be considered to be a bit of a slight on us.  Oh well.
> 
> I wouldn't interpret this as a sleight. APC has been very active and
> visible in the area of seeking multistakeholder dialogue specifically
> on the enhanced cooperation topic. I don't recall IGC doing anything
> visible yet to demonstrate interest in this topic. Of course the CSTD
> Chair will want to select someone as "focal point" who has been seen
> as having such a demonstrated interest.
> 
> I would propose that the IGC recommendations (as selected by our
> NomCom) should be communicated to Anriette and in addition also
> directly to CSTD, with an explanation of what the IGC is and what the
> NomCom process does, etc. At this stage, the only thing that our
> Caucus can do to be visible is to communicate.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


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

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

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

From avri at ella.com  Mon Feb 18 09:35:44 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:35:44 -0500
Subject: February 22nd - 23:59 Geneva Time Fwd: [governance] Call for
 nominations for choosing IGC nominees for the CSTD Working Group on
 Enhanced Cooperation.
References: <511DE7D0.3010506@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <E4BCB897-329C-40D4-BC7C-027CA846227F@ella.com>

Hi,

Did not need to wait for someone else to send a reminder.

And figuring an extra reminder never hurt any group.  
So while searching for the info myself, figured I would remind others too

avri


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
> Subject: [governance] Call for nominations for choosing IGC nominees for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.
> Date: 15 February 2013 02:46:24 EST
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Cc: nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org
> Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Guru गुरु <Guru at ITforChange.net>
> 
> Call for nominations for choosing IGC nominees for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> 
> The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), 2013 Nominating Committee is issuing a call for nominations for choosing Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) nominees for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (CSTD WG-EC).
> 
>  1. DEADLINE for submission of nominations to nomcom is: February 22nd - 23:59 Geneva Time
>  2. Please submit nominations –including self-nominations to nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org  <mailto:nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org>. In nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent to be on the WG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for candidature 
>  3. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person in the IG and information society arena.
>  4. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person will be a good Civil Society (CS)/ IGC representative on the WG.
>  5. Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the WG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies, including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies and the IGC informed about the WG proceedings and related matters, as well as present/ push their positions in the WG.
> 
>  6. At a minimum, all nominations and self-nominations should consist of the following:
>      1. Name
>      2. Name of nominator (or self)
>      3. Nationality
>      4. Country of Residence
>      5. Gender
>      6. Short Bio relevant to IG
>      7. What specific skills or experiences do you have that make you a good candidate for the CSTD WG-EC
> 
> Nomcom has chosen the following as the criteria for selecting the final list of nominees
> 
>  7. Key criteria:
>      1. Regular contributor to IGC with knowledge of the UN System
>      2. Effective communication and consultative style with IGC members
>      3. Able to represent the diverse range of views and perspectives held by civil society
>      4. Stated vision for enhanced co-operation
>      5. Capacity, knowledge and experience in the potential for the Internet to enhance human and societal development
>      6. Capacity, knowledge and experience in the political aspects of enhanced co-operation including the differing perspectives on sovereign rights, freedom of expression, access to information
>      7. Proven commitment to human rights based solutions for cooperative Internet Governance
> 
> 
> Optional criteria:
>      8. Formal qualifications relevant to the CSTD WG on EC.
>      9. Works in an organisational context that supports participation in the EC discussions
> 
> Other considerations for the NomCom:
>     10. Achieving a gender balance
>     11. Achieving a balance of representation from north/south, developed/developing countries
>     12. Achieving a balance between nominees strengths in the technical, political and development spheres
> 
>  8. IMPORTANT DATES
>      1. Nomcom starts, and nomination for CSTD WG-EC opens- February 15th, 2013
>      2. Nomination close - February 22nd, 2013
>      3. Nomcom confers between 22nd and 28th, 2013
>      4. Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for WG –March 1, 2013
> 
> On behalf of the Nominating Committee: Tracey Naughton, Devon Blake, Jose Felix Arias Ynche, Lillian Nalwoga and Sarah Kiden
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan 
> (non-voting chair)
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/cded262b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Revised call for nominations to CSTD WG Feb 2013.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 43304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/cded262b/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/cded262b/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 09:36:53 2013
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:36:53 -0600
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba> <CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba> <CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com>
 <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CALCecM-yXPHDnX3BEyevRm9QWunm+n_Mz4+XpUVddWdiE7L9Rw@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Ian: I support extending the voting period and reminding list
members to vote as soon as possible.
Thanks gp

Ginger (Virginia) Paque

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
**
**


On 16 February 2013 13:35, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the
> existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes
> count, rather than running the whole process again.
>
> Ian
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>
> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
>
> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
> vote.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sala,
>>
>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>>
>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>>
>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote
>> to
>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of
>> the
>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that
>> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of
>> the
>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>>
>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted
>> to
>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>> To: Ian Peter
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>
>> Dear Ian and All,
>>
>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
>> mine.
>>
>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>>
>> Option 1
>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
>> results of the votes.
>>
>> Option 2
>> Re-run the votes
>>
>>
>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
>> voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh
>> votes
>> or extend the votes.
>>
>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>>
>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>>
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>
>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>> Sala
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>>
>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership
>>> required
>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>>> charter quote is below.
>>>
>>>
>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>>
>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
>>> members
>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are
>>> based
>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
>>> amending the charter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>>
>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>
>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>
>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-**proposed-charter-amendments<http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments>and the charter as
>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-**process<http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process>
>>> .
>>>
>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your
>>> contributions,
>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all
>>> those
>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those
>>> who
>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>>
>>> With Kind Regards,
>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>>
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**__
>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**__
>> ______________________________**______________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**______________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/1d8502a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From shailam at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 18 09:39:20 2013
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 06:39:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
Message-ID: <1361198360.57108.YahooMailMobile@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

+1
Shaila
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/31d816d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From kerry at kdbsystems.com  Mon Feb 18 09:50:13 2013
From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:50:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <CALCecM-yXPHDnX3BEyevRm9QWunm+n_Mz4+XpUVddWdiE7L9Rw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiB3yf3uPnrtTmYW==Lworz9ROuTnAY7Ds9HwtricgiZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <FB122004AB564E9CBE369CF5BA1F0896@Toshiba>
 <CAJwbTiCOTqRx0jFGVDQznJzmiVWyBjUChwUAdpi+rnRtrPPO0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DF74926222F43C9A3ED47DE9ECC8AC8@Toshiba>
 <CAFabd1+pfwb+P-yYnd+Tn+kfB9VLwD-MrfTe6-mz-=c0-+NDig@mail.gmail.com>
 <D46F355CC5CC44158B2DD12FE281E8EC@Toshiba>
 <CALCecM-yXPHDnX3BEyevRm9QWunm+n_Mz4+XpUVddWdiE7L9Rw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D538A82297C41@EXCH01.KDBSystems.local>

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days. It is very tempting to extend the vote but in the end I believe that we have rules for a reason. The first time a rule doesn't work isn't the time to change the rule. It's not really a rule then. By our existing rules the proposals failed. We have rules to deal with this. I don't support changing the rules mid-stream. If people want to change the rules then use the proper procedures and propose a change and have a vote.

Kerry Brown

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque
Sent: February-18-13 6:37 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter
Cc: Adam Peake; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

I agree with Ian: I support extending the voting period and reminding list members to vote as soon as possible.
Thanks gp

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu<mailto:VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu>
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig<http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>


On 16 February 2013 13:35, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes count, rather than running the whole process again.

Ian

-----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> ; Ian Peter
Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.

But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
vote.

Adam


On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
Hi Sala,

How many votes short are we of a positive result?

That would determine perhaps the best way to go.

In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote to
get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of the
reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it's just a technicality that
we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of the
ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)

So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted to
do so - accompanied by encouragement and reminders.

Ian

From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
To: Ian Peter
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Dear Ian and All,

You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
mine.

As such, we currently have two options and they are:-

Option 1
Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
results of the votes.

Option 2
Re-run the votes


If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh votes
or extend the votes.

In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.

For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:

76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
questions, as none of them were compulsory.

On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.

Thank you and Kind Regards,
Sala

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:

Sala, are you sure?

The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required
for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
charter quote is below.


Amendments to the Charter

This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
(10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members
of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based
on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
amending the charter.



(perhaps it should be different but it isn't on my reading)



Ian Peter




From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Dear All,

Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
Amendment Poll. Here are the results:

76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
questions, as none of them were compulsory.

On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.

This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as
amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions,
elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those
who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who
took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
Jeremy for helping out.

With Kind Regards,
Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)


--

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828<tel:%2B679%203544828>
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851<tel:%2B679%20998%202851>



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

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

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




--
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828<tel:%2B679%203544828>
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851<tel:%2B679%20998%202851>



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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/980ef860/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From iza at anr.org  Mon Feb 18 09:51:11 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:51:11 +0900
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <1361198360.57108.YahooMailMobile@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1361198360.57108.YahooMailMobile@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKieU+0C32WnuBpPcVH6xSnC+4XnWS-+m6nQiW_=v6h0Aw@mail.gmail.com>

+1 for extension and reminder.

izumi


2013/2/18 shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>

> +1
> Shaila
>
>  ------------------------------
> * From: * Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>;
> * To: * governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
> Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>;
> * Cc: * Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>;
>  * Subject: * Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
> * Sent: * Mon, Feb 18, 2013 2:36:53 PM
>
>   I agree with Ian: I support extending the voting period and reminding
> list members to vote as soon as possible.
> Thanks gp
>
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>
> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
> Diplo Foundation
> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> **
> **
>
>
> On 16 February 2013 13:35, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the
>> existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes
>> count, rather than running the whole process again.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
>> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>
>> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
>>
>> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
>> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
>> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
>> vote.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sala,
>>>
>>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>>>
>>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>>>
>>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote
>>> to
>>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of
>>> the
>>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality
>>> that
>>> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of
>>> the
>>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>>>
>>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted
>>> to
>>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>>> To: Ian Peter
>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>
>>> Dear Ian and All,
>>>
>>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
>>> mine.
>>>
>>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>>>
>>> Option 1
>>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
>>> results of the votes.
>>>
>>> Option 2
>>> Re-run the votes
>>>
>>>
>>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
>>> voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
>>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh
>>> votes
>>> or extend the votes.
>>>
>>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the
>>> website
>>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>>>
>>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>>>
>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>
>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>
>>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>>> Sala
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>>>
>>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership
>>>> required
>>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>>>> charter quote is below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>>>
>>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
>>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
>>>> members
>>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are
>>>> based
>>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
>>>> amending the charter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>>>
>>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>>
>>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>>
>>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
>>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found
>>>> at
>>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-**proposed-charter-amendments<http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments>and the charter as
>>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-**process<http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your
>>>> contributions,
>>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all
>>>> those
>>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those
>>>> who
>>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
>>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>>>
>>>> With Kind Regards,
>>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>> Suva
>>>> Fiji
>>>>
>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**__
>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>>
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**__
>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/c7400e79/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 09:59:44 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:59:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <CA+YNoKieU+0C32WnuBpPcVH6xSnC+4XnWS-+m6nQiW_=v6h0Aw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1361198360.57108.YahooMailMobile@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <CA+YNoKieU+0C32WnuBpPcVH6xSnC+4XnWS-+m6nQiW_=v6h0Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN6Z-eFQUZB=uRu6ZL11t9bxxeTx239en3F0p8cjL6m8Og@mail.gmail.com>

I usually find myself agreeing with Ginger and Izumi, but this time I agree
with Kerry.
If a group creates rules for itself then it should follow those rules, or
change them if the need arises, in the way that it has agreed.
And writing that first sentence gave me another perspective on the earlier
suggestion of transferring one's vote to a like-minded party. :-)
Deirdre

On 18 February 2013 10:51, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> +1 for extension and reminder.
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2013/2/18 shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>
>
>> +1
>> Shaila
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> * From: * Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>;
>> * To: * governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>> Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>;
>> * Cc: * Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>;
>>  * Subject: * Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>> * Sent: * Mon, Feb 18, 2013 2:36:53 PM
>>
>>   I agree with Ian: I support extending the voting period and reminding
>> list members to vote as soon as possible.
>> Thanks gp
>>
>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>>
>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>> Diplo Foundation
>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>> **
>> **
>>
>>
>> On 16 February 2013 13:35, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>>> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the
>>> existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes
>>> count, rather than running the whole process again.
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
>>> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>
>>> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
>>>
>>> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
>>> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
>>> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
>>> vote.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Sala,
>>>>
>>>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>>>>
>>>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>>>>
>>>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the
>>>> vote to
>>>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour
>>>> of the
>>>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality
>>>> that
>>>> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any
>>>> of the
>>>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>>>>
>>>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent
>>>> voted to
>>>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>>>> To: Ian Peter
>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>>
>>>> Dear Ian and All,
>>>>
>>>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake
>>>> is
>>>> mine.
>>>>
>>>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>>>>
>>>> Option 1
>>>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
>>>> results of the votes.
>>>>
>>>> Option 2
>>>> Re-run the votes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for
>>>> extending
>>>> voting periods for other things that require voting including
>>>> coordinator
>>>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh
>>>> votes
>>>> or extend the votes.
>>>>
>>>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the
>>>> website
>>>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>>>>
>>>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>>
>>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>>>> Sala
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>>>>
>>>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership
>>>>> required
>>>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>>>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>>>>> charter quote is below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>>>>
>>>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than
>>>>> ten
>>>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
>>>>> members
>>>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are
>>>>> based
>>>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>>>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
>>>>> amending the charter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>>>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>>>>
>>>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>>>
>>>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval,
>>>>> which
>>>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found
>>>>> at
>>>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-**proposed-charter-amendments<http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments>and the charter as
>>>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-**process<http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your
>>>>> contributions,
>>>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all
>>>>> those
>>>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those
>>>>> who
>>>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and
>>>>> to
>>>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>>>>
>>>>> With Kind Regards,
>>>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>>> Suva
>>>>> Fiji
>>>>>
>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**__
>>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>> Suva
>>>> Fiji
>>>>
>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**__
>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> www.anr.org
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/4f77f366/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Feb 18 10:00:31 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:00:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] Note on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD
 working group on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <5121E6B2.6000401@ciroap.org>
References: <5121E6B2.6000401@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <5122420F.7010709@apc.org>

Dear IGC members

Thanks for alerting me to this Jeremy. I was not aware of being assigned 
this role. I was travelling so am not up to date with checking my mail.

After seeing this thread, I checked, and there was a general note sent 
to CSTD members and regular participants (e.g Marilia,Parminder and 
myself as well as some others from civil society). I

Attached is the note from the CSTD chairperson that explains the process.

The note actually emphasises that being identified as a focal point does 
not assume selectionas a WG member.  Here is what it says:

"Designation as focal points does not imply selection of the focal 
points as members of the
CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.
The role of the focal points is to assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out 
to the interested parties
in their respective regional or stakeholder groups and to facilitate 
consultations regarding
which CSTD Member States and stakeholder group representatives would 
like to be submitted
for consideration by the Chair of the CSTD, in accordance with the 
proposed composition of
the Working Group (four per regional group plus the two WSIS hosts, and 
five per other
stakeholder groups).
The focal points will convey to the Chair of the CSTD the results of the 
consultations.
The Chair of the CSTD will make decisions and announce the final 
composition of the Working
Group, as requested by the General Assembly in resolution 67/195, 
paragraph 21."

Good that the time frame coincides with the IGC process.

Jeremy, I imagine that CSTD did not ask IGC to coordinate this process 
so that it creates opportunity for CSOs or CSO networks outside of the 
IGC to also nominate people to serve on the WG. I don't think you should 
interpret this as a slight at all. I am sure that CSTD is well aware of 
the fact that IGC is an important grouping and that it will put forward 
a list of nominees.

Best

Anriette



On 18/02/2013 10:30, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Apologies if this has already been posted here and I missed it, but
> Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chair of the CSTD, has recently released a
> Note on Composition and Guidelines for the CSTD working group on
> enhanced cooperation, which is available here:
>
> http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2013d02_Composition.pdf
>
> Anriette of APC has been nominated as the focal point for civil
> society.  So I suppose that our nomcom will have to communicate its
> recommendations through her.  Anriette is of course a suitable choice,
> but the fact that the IGC was not chosen as the focal point could also
> be considered to be a bit of a slight on us.  Oh well.
>
> The deadline for nominations is 8 March 2013 - which fits in nicely with
> our own nomcom's timetable - with the final composition to be announced
> between 11-15 March.  The first meeting of the Working Group is to be
> held in April-May, and a second on 30-31 May.
>
> Meanwhile, I have published an article with my thoughts in Digital News
> Asia at
> http://www.digitalnewsasia.com/insights/internet-freedom-in-a-world-of-states,
> which summarises a longer version, serialised in three parts at
> http://jere.my/l/58, and which in turn will be the basis for my remarks
> at a Best Bits session next week in Paris for the WSIS+10 Review Event.
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/5852464a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Focal Points for Consultations.pdf
Type: application/force-download
Size: 210072 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/5852464a/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 11:32:09 2013
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:32:09 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Blogpost: Civil Society and the
 Emerging Internet Cold War: Non-Alignment and the Public Interest
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2331E3F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <08a601ce08a4$499567b0$dcc03710$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxgoLdK+5XtHMKAe9oJeF0QJ9ih3oUvrNc1daA+VQii52g@mail.gmail.com>
 <511979FB.4090008@cafonso.ca> <CACAaNxgMMb9N1mAco+u18CvscCVir6OSAmeQt6fhPM0Xk1f9+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <511A1F79.6070306@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2331E3F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uGTke8TRRWdNSFbqx0B5uw4bONztP99HG21NADMLqW1bQ@mail.gmail.com>

Esteemed Milton,

the whole process surrounding the ITR and its agenda - especially concerns
regarding network management and security - have been used as a framework
that should be in some way captured by Marco Civil. Dubai served (even
more) as a focal point for the organization of telcos as a stakeholder in
the domestic process in Brazil. And as Carlos correctly put it, the
Ministry of Communications has raised its voice in terms of streamlining
the Federal governments' position both internationally and domestically.

Regards
Diego

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> Carlos, can you explain in more detail what you mean?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > This move incidentally meant a tremendous blow against the Marco Civil
> > process now running in Congress. Both telcos and media (trying to insert
> > arbitrary takedown measures without due process in the Marco) are
> > bombarding it with intense lobbying in Congress and the help of the
> > Ministry of Communications.
> >
>
> [Milton L Mueller]
> Does "this move" mean the governments vote for the ITRs?
> If so, how and why did a vote for the ITRs affect the Marco Civil?
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Diego R. Canabarro
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/7b47884e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 11:55:39 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:55:39 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=BFQuien_es_responsable_de_esta_desorga?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?nizaci=C3=B3n=3F?=
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLvap-M7PCxYXJyhFFScSRODUM_JccO1OmXCbWV505Ptog@mail.gmail.com>

¿Se puede saber a quien o a quienes le toco esta responsabilidad? porque
ahora nadie tiene la culpa de que estemos en este lió de reglamentos...

No empleen el refrán de; Divide y Vencerás

Lo que necesitamos es una; Enmienda al reglamento

Estamos quedando ante los ojos del Mundo como cómo Desorganizados

*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/18 Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>

> I usually find myself agreeing with Ginger and Izumi, but this time I
> agree with Kerry.
> If a group creates rules for itself then it should follow those rules, or
> change them if the need arises, in the way that it has agreed.
> And writing that first sentence gave me another perspective on the earlier
> suggestion of transferring one's vote to a like-minded party. :-)
> Deirdre
>
> On 18 February 2013 10:51, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 for extension and reminder.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>> 2013/2/18 shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>
>>
>>> +1
>>> Shaila
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------
>>> * From: * Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>;
>>> * To: * governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>>> Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>;
>>> * Cc: * Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>;
>>>  * Subject: * Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>> * Sent: * Mon, Feb 18, 2013 2:36:53 PM
>>>
>>>   I agree with Ian: I support extending the voting period and reminding
>>> list members to vote as soon as possible.
>>> Thanks gp
>>>
>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>>>
>>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>>> Diplo Foundation
>>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
>>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>> **
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 February 2013 13:35, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the
>>>> existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes
>>>> count, rather than running the whole process again.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
>>>> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>>
>>>> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
>>>>
>>>> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
>>>> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
>>>> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
>>>> vote.
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Sala,
>>>>>
>>>>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>>>>>
>>>>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the
>>>>> vote to
>>>>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour
>>>>> of the
>>>>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality
>>>>> that
>>>>> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any
>>>>> of the
>>>>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>>>>>
>>>>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent
>>>>> voted to
>>>>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>>>>> To: Ian Peter
>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Ian and All,
>>>>>
>>>>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake
>>>>> is
>>>>> mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>>>>>
>>>>> Option 1
>>>>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
>>>>> results of the votes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Option 2
>>>>> Re-run the votes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for
>>>>> extending
>>>>> voting periods for other things that require voting including
>>>>> coordinator
>>>>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh
>>>>> votes
>>>>> or extend the votes.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the
>>>>> website
>>>>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>>>
>>>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>>>>> Sala
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership
>>>>>> required
>>>>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>>>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>>>>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>>>>>> charter quote is below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than
>>>>>> ten
>>>>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
>>>>>> members
>>>>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are
>>>>>> based
>>>>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>>>>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> amending the charter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>>>>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>>>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>>>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>>>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is
>>>>>> found at
>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-**proposed-charter-amendments<http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments>and the charter as
>>>>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-**process<http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your
>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to
>>>>>> all those
>>>>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all
>>>>>> those who
>>>>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With Kind Regards,
>>>>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>>>> Suva
>>>>>> Fiji
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________**__
>>>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>>> Suva
>>>>> Fiji
>>>>>
>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**__
>>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>> Japan
>> www.anr.org
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/d02a6517/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 12:18:42 2013
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:18:42 -0500
Subject: [governance] CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates
 quick to reiterate criticism
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uGx=KhYC+dHpRYk41zxR2oR-hiWP1dniiYgQwcAg-zizw@mail.gmail.com>

CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates quick to reiterate
criticism

http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/cispa-backers-reintroduce-bill-privacy-advocates-quick-reiterate-criticism/2013-02-14#ixzz2LGuwIvbU


February 14, 2013 | By David
Perera<http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/author/dperera>

Backers of a controversial cybersecurity bill
approved<http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/house-approves-cispa/2012-04-30>
by
the House in April 2012 reintroduced it again Feb. 13 for consideration by
the new Congress.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (H.R.
624<http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113hr624>)
would create a mechanism for the private sector to share with the federal
government cyber threat information--the Homeland Security Department, or
another federal agency. Critics such as the Center for Democracy and
Technology say the bill language creates an avenue for information on
American Internet users to go to the intelligence community, a criticism
CDT President Leslie Harris
reiterated<https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/cybersecurity-legislation-still-fundamentally-flawed-cdt-opposes-cispa>
soon
after the bill's reintroduction.

Privacy groups have also said the bill would allow federal agencies to
repurpose the information they do receive through the information sharing
program, something that goes against privacy principles requiring data to
be used only for the purpose for which it was collected.

The reintroduced bill, like the version that passed the House, says the
government could use the information for cybersecurity itself, as well as
the investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; protection of
individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; protection of
minors from physical or psychological harm; and protection of the national
security of the United States.

Critics have particularly noted the crime and national security provisions,
stating that they could lead to overly broad uses of the data.

Bill co-sponsors Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger
(D-Md.), chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House
Intelligence Committee, have said much of the criticism is unwarranted.

The bill's language prevents an Internet service provider from sharing
information about its individual customers, a committee "myth v. fact"
document<http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/cispamythvactFeb122013v2.pdf>
(.pdf)
says.

Worries that the federal government would be able to read private emails
without a warrant ignores "the highly rapid and automated nature of cyber
threat information sharing," the document also says.

For more:
- go to <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113hr624> the THOMAS
page for H.R. 624
- go to <http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-624-press-materials> a House
Intelligence Committee webpage with press materials on the bill


-- 
Diego R. Canabarro
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/97d7594b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gpaque at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 13:23:26 2013
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:23:26 -0600
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BFQuien_es_responsable_de_esta_d?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?esorganizaci=F3n=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLvap-M7PCxYXJyhFFScSRODUM_JccO1OmXCbWV505Ptog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAYFVLvap-M7PCxYXJyhFFScSRODUM_JccO1OmXCbWV505Ptog@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALCecM9q6MFK5OL6-dnQS5BURzq4A3AfcVzp0+nai1tz_jXQTQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hola José... Somos todos los responsables :) Somos todos los miembros...
Será que culpemos a quienes no votaron ni si, ni no?

En vez de culpables, voy en busqueda de una solución. Qué propones?
Saludos,
Ginger

Hi Jose... We are all responsible. :)  We are all members...
Could we blame those who did not vote either yes, or no?

Instead of someone to blame, I am looking for a solution. What do you
propose?
Greetings,
Ginger

Ginger (Virginia) Paque

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
**
**


On 18 February 2013 10:55, José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com> wrote:

> ¿Se puede saber a quien o a quienes le toco esta responsabilidad? porque
> ahora nadie tiene la culpa de que estemos en este lió de reglamentos...
>
> No empleen el refrán de; Divide y Vencerás
>
> Lo que necesitamos es una; Enmienda al reglamento
>
> Estamos quedando ante los ojos del Mundo como cómo Desorganizados
>
> *Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
> *                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
>
>
> 2013/2/18 Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
>
>> I usually find myself agreeing with Ginger and Izumi, but this time I
>> agree with Kerry.
>> If a group creates rules for itself then it should follow those rules, or
>> change them if the need arises, in the way that it has agreed.
>> And writing that first sentence gave me another perspective on the
>> earlier suggestion of transferring one's vote to a like-minded party. :-)
>> Deirdre
>>
>> On 18 February 2013 10:51, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for extension and reminder.
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/2/18 shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> Shaila
>>>>
>>>>  ------------------------------
>>>> * From: * Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>;
>>>> * To: * governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>>>> Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>;
>>>> * Cc: * Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>;
>>>>  * Subject: * Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>> * Sent: * Mon, Feb 18, 2013 2:36:53 PM
>>>>
>>>>   I agree with Ian: I support extending the voting period and
>>>> reminding list members to vote as soon as possible.
>>>> Thanks gp
>>>>
>>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>>>>
>>>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
>>>> Diplo Foundation
>>>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
>>>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
>>>> **
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16 February 2013 13:35, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the
>>>>> existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes
>>>>> count, rather than running the whole process again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
>>>>> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>>>
>>>>> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
>>>>> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
>>>>> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
>>>>> vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sala,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the
>>>>>> vote to
>>>>>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent
>>>>>> voted to
>>>>>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>>>>>> To: Ian Peter
>>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Ian and All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the
>>>>>> mistake is
>>>>>> mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option 1
>>>>>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
>>>>>> results of the votes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Option 2
>>>>>> Re-run the votes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for
>>>>>> extending
>>>>>> voting periods for other things that require voting including
>>>>>> coordinator
>>>>>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast
>>>>>> fresh votes
>>>>>> or extend the votes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the
>>>>>> website
>>>>>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>>>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>>>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>>>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>>>>>> Sala
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership
>>>>>>> required
>>>>>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>>>>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>>>>>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>>>>>>> charter quote is below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than
>>>>>>> ten
>>>>>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are
>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>>>>>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> amending the charter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>>>>>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>>>>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>>>>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>>>>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval,
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is
>>>>>>> found at
>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-**proposed-charter-amendments<http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments>and the charter as
>>>>>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-**process<http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your
>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to
>>>>>>> all those
>>>>>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all
>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll
>>>>>>> and to
>>>>>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With Kind Regards,
>>>>>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>>>>> Suva
>>>>>>> Fiji
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ______________________________**__
>>>>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>>>> Suva
>>>>>> Fiji
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________**__
>>>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________**______________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing<http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance<http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t<http://translate.google.com/translate_t>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>                      >> Izumi Aizu <<
>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>>> Japan
>>> www.anr.org
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/565b0362/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 13:45:24 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:45:24 +1200
Subject: [governance] Charter Amendment Poll
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiD8qOzoMOqx+UGTRT0X4W4_nzwOsm6GGgnH9pOnNtgtsQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

The discussions on the list have been helpful in relation to coming to our
final decision on this matter. This was not in any way an easy decision to
reach as we understand the effort put in by the proposers to initiate
charter amendment. However based on the poll results:

76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
questions, as none of them were compulsory.

On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.

Noting that there are *127* members of the IGC, that is those who took to
the Poll in electing their preferred candidate, all proposals fall short of
the requisite 84.67% and this would be *84*.

As such all proposals have failed.

Whilst it is easy for us to reopen the poll and get people to cast the
votes (it is the easy path), there is a danger in setting a precedent not
only for future polls but even retrospectively for the last election.

On the issue of reminders, the role of the Coordinators is to merely
facilitate the process, every person on the list, member and subscriber
were sent their electronic voting papers. There was substantial discussion
on the list and it should have been sufficient for people to be aware that
there was a vote underway.

We thank you for your participation in the process and we found the
discussions and contributions made by each of you helpful.

Kind Regards,

Sala (On behalf of the coordinators)


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130219/4bf1da07/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From avri at ella.com  Mon Feb 18 14:17:23 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:17:23 -0500
Subject: [governance] Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiD8qOzoMOqx+UGTRT0X4W4_nzwOsm6GGgnH9pOnNtgtsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiD8qOzoMOqx+UGTRT0X4W4_nzwOsm6GGgnH9pOnNtgtsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CE1A8CC4-A42C-4D29-B37B-636D087DBB69@ella.com>


On 18 Feb 2013, at 13:45, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:

> On the issue of reminders, the role of the Coordinators is to merely facilitate the process, every person on the list, member and subscriber were sent their electronic voting papers. There was substantial discussion on the list and it should have been sufficient for people to be aware that there was a vote underway. 


Ouch!



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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 18 14:56:28 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:56:28 +1200
Subject: [governance] CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates
 quick to reiterate criticism
In-Reply-To: <CA+MV=uGx=KhYC+dHpRYk41zxR2oR-hiWP1dniiYgQwcAg-zizw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+MV=uGx=KhYC+dHpRYk41zxR2oR-hiWP1dniiYgQwcAg-zizw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAZXeaeOmuZe=LYP09JJ9Y619cSaBN=hPXfyO7=x-2+Gg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Diego,

There is an interesting infographic, see:
http://www.zingbroadband.com/state-of-internet-infographic on the state of
the Internet in the United States. I am not sure whether the information in
the infographic is authentic but it makes for interesting reading.

On the issue of the CISPA, there are varied causes for concern that exist
with the "access" to information of individuals, organizations and privacy
and the ability to trust that your information is secure and not
arbitrarily exposed.

When you see the recent regulatory trends by the FCC and how former FCC
Chair and Commissioner are now very much in the game, not that there is
anything wrong with it or is there? The view from here is pretty murky.

Aside from CISPA, there is another Cyber Security Bill that is equally
controversial, see:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130126_pandoras_box_new_us_cyber_security_bills_worm_hole_internet/

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

> CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates quick to reiterate
> criticism
>
>
> http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/cispa-backers-reintroduce-bill-privacy-advocates-quick-reiterate-criticism/2013-02-14#ixzz2LGuwIvbU
>
>
> February 14, 2013 | By David Perera<http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/author/dperera>
>
> Backers of a controversial cybersecurity bill approved<http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/house-approves-cispa/2012-04-30> by
> the House in April 2012 reintroduced it again Feb. 13 for consideration by
> the new Congress.
>
> The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (H.R. 624<http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113hr624>)
> would create a mechanism for the private sector to share with the federal
> government cyber threat information--the Homeland Security Department, or
> another federal agency. Critics such as the Center for Democracy and
> Technology say the bill language creates an avenue for information on
> American Internet users to go to the intelligence community, a criticism
> CDT President Leslie Harris reiterated<https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/cybersecurity-legislation-still-fundamentally-flawed-cdt-opposes-cispa> soon
> after the bill's reintroduction.
>
> Privacy groups have also said the bill would allow federal agencies to
> repurpose the information they do receive through the information sharing
> program, something that goes against privacy principles requiring data to
> be used only for the purpose for which it was collected.
>
> The reintroduced bill, like the version that passed the House, says the
> government could use the information for cybersecurity itself, as well as
> the investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; protection of
> individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; protection of
> minors from physical or psychological harm; and protection of the national
> security of the United States.
>
> Critics have particularly noted the crime and national security
> provisions, stating that they could lead to overly broad uses of the data.
>
> Bill co-sponsors Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger
> (D-Md.), chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House
> Intelligence Committee, have said much of the criticism is unwarranted.
>
> The bill's language prevents an Internet service provider from sharing
> information about its individual customers, a committee "myth v. fact"
> document<http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/cispamythvactFeb122013v2.pdf> (.pdf)
> says.
>
> Worries that the federal government would be able to read private emails
> without a warrant ignores "the highly rapid and automated nature of cyber
> threat information sharing," the document also says.
>
> For more:
> - go to <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113hr624> the
> THOMAS page for H.R. 624
> - go to <http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-624-press-materials> a House
> Intelligence Committee webpage with press materials on the bill
>
>
> --
> Diego R. Canabarro
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130219/c9bca9e4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From diegocanabarro at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 15:00:12 2013
From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:00:12 -0500
Subject: [governance] CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates
 quick to reiterate criticism
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiAZXeaeOmuZe=LYP09JJ9Y619cSaBN=hPXfyO7=x-2+Gg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+MV=uGx=KhYC+dHpRYk41zxR2oR-hiWP1dniiYgQwcAg-zizw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAZXeaeOmuZe=LYP09JJ9Y619cSaBN=hPXfyO7=x-2+Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+MV=uHm9ABhRZx00SGLzdPU4_bKQNZXX-muKOyjOzqHNQO7_w@mail.gmail.com>

The link for the info-graphic is broken, Sala.
And I saw your comments on the Bill. :)

Regards
Diego

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Diego,
>
> There is an interesting infographic, see:
> http://www.zingbroadband.com/state-of-internet-infographic on the state
> of the Internet in the United States. I am not sure whether the information
> in the infographic is authentic but it makes for interesting reading.
>
> On the issue of the CISPA, there are varied causes for concern that exist
> with the "access" to information of individuals, organizations and privacy
> and the ability to trust that your information is secure and not
> arbitrarily exposed.
>
> When you see the recent regulatory trends by the FCC and how former FCC
> Chair and Commissioner are now very much in the game, not that there is
> anything wrong with it or is there? The view from here is pretty murky.
>
> Aside from CISPA, there is another Cyber Security Bill that is equally
> controversial, see:
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130126_pandoras_box_new_us_cyber_security_bills_worm_hole_internet/
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sala
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates quick to reiterate
>> criticism
>>
>>
>> http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/cispa-backers-reintroduce-bill-privacy-advocates-quick-reiterate-criticism/2013-02-14#ixzz2LGuwIvbU
>>
>>
>> February 14, 2013 | By David Perera<http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/author/dperera>
>>
>> Backers of a controversial cybersecurity bill approved<http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/house-approves-cispa/2012-04-30> by
>> the House in April 2012 reintroduced it again Feb. 13 for consideration by
>> the new Congress.
>>
>> The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (H.R. 624<http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113hr624>)
>> would create a mechanism for the private sector to share with the federal
>> government cyber threat information--the Homeland Security Department, or
>> another federal agency. Critics such as the Center for Democracy and
>> Technology say the bill language creates an avenue for information on
>> American Internet users to go to the intelligence community, a criticism
>> CDT President Leslie Harris reiterated<https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/cybersecurity-legislation-still-fundamentally-flawed-cdt-opposes-cispa> soon
>> after the bill's reintroduction.
>>
>> Privacy groups have also said the bill would allow federal agencies to
>> repurpose the information they do receive through the information sharing
>> program, something that goes against privacy principles requiring data to
>> be used only for the purpose for which it was collected.
>>
>> The reintroduced bill, like the version that passed the House, says the
>> government could use the information for cybersecurity itself, as well as
>> the investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; protection of
>> individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; protection of
>> minors from physical or psychological harm; and protection of the national
>> security of the United States.
>>
>> Critics have particularly noted the crime and national security
>> provisions, stating that they could lead to overly broad uses of the data.
>>
>> Bill co-sponsors Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger
>> (D-Md.), chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House
>> Intelligence Committee, have said much of the criticism is unwarranted.
>>
>> The bill's language prevents an Internet service provider from sharing
>> information about its individual customers, a committee "myth v. fact"
>> document<http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/cispamythvactFeb122013v2.pdf> (.pdf)
>> says.
>>
>> Worries that the federal government would be able to read private emails
>> without a warrant ignores "the highly rapid and automated nature of cyber
>> threat information sharing," the document also says.
>>
>> For more:
>> - go to <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113hr624> the
>> THOMAS page for H.R. 624
>> - go to <http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-624-press-materials> a House
>> Intelligence Committee webpage with press materials on the bill
>>
>>
>> --
>> Diego R. Canabarro
>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>>
>> --
>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
>> Skype: diegocanabarro
>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
>> --
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>


-- 
Diego R. Canabarro
http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/a9a015f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 15:05:09 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:05:09 +1200
Subject: [governance] CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates
 quick to reiterate criticism
In-Reply-To: <CA+MV=uHm9ABhRZx00SGLzdPU4_bKQNZXX-muKOyjOzqHNQO7_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+MV=uGx=KhYC+dHpRYk41zxR2oR-hiWP1dniiYgQwcAg-zizw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiAZXeaeOmuZe=LYP09JJ9Y619cSaBN=hPXfyO7=x-2+Gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+MV=uHm9ABhRZx00SGLzdPU4_bKQNZXX-muKOyjOzqHNQO7_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiA0Tt2XK5XTn7JGB+8T0nYtHvL1vx7eAhisUeYfMb1Kgg@mail.gmail.com>

The link is broken indeed. :( I am attaching the copy of the infographic
that I have.

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

> The link for the info-graphic is broken, Sala.
> And I saw your comments on the Bill. :)
>
> Regards
> Diego
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Diego,
>>
>> There is an interesting infographic, see:
>> http://www.zingbroadband.com/state-of-internet-infographic on the state
>> of the Internet in the United States. I am not sure whether the information
>> in the infographic is authentic but it makes for interesting reading.
>>
>> On the issue of the CISPA, there are varied causes for concern that exist
>> with the "access" to information of individuals, organizations and privacy
>> and the ability to trust that your information is secure and not
>> arbitrarily exposed.
>>
>> When you see the recent regulatory trends by the FCC and how former FCC
>> Chair and Commissioner are now very much in the game, not that there is
>> anything wrong with it or is there? The view from here is pretty murky.
>>
>> Aside from CISPA, there is another Cyber Security Bill that is equally
>> controversial, see:
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130126_pandoras_box_new_us_cyber_security_bills_worm_hole_internet/
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Sala
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
>> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates quick to reiterate
>>> criticism
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/cispa-backers-reintroduce-bill-privacy-advocates-quick-reiterate-criticism/2013-02-14#ixzz2LGuwIvbU
>>>
>>>
>>> February 14, 2013 | By David Perera<http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/author/dperera>
>>>
>>> Backers of a controversial cybersecurity bill approved<http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/house-approves-cispa/2012-04-30> by
>>> the House in April 2012 reintroduced it again Feb. 13 for consideration by
>>> the new Congress.
>>>
>>> The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (H.R. 624<http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113hr624>)
>>> would create a mechanism for the private sector to share with the federal
>>> government cyber threat information--the Homeland Security Department, or
>>> another federal agency. Critics such as the Center for Democracy and
>>> Technology say the bill language creates an avenue for information on
>>> American Internet users to go to the intelligence community, a criticism
>>> CDT President Leslie Harris reiterated<https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/cybersecurity-legislation-still-fundamentally-flawed-cdt-opposes-cispa> soon
>>> after the bill's reintroduction.
>>>
>>> Privacy groups have also said the bill would allow federal agencies to
>>> repurpose the information they do receive through the information sharing
>>> program, something that goes against privacy principles requiring data to
>>> be used only for the purpose for which it was collected.
>>>
>>> The reintroduced bill, like the version that passed the House, says the
>>> government could use the information for cybersecurity itself, as well as
>>> the investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; protection of
>>> individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; protection of
>>> minors from physical or psychological harm; and protection of the national
>>> security of the United States.
>>>
>>> Critics have particularly noted the crime and national security
>>> provisions, stating that they could lead to overly broad uses of the data.
>>>
>>> Bill co-sponsors Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger
>>> (D-Md.), chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House
>>> Intelligence Committee, have said much of the criticism is unwarranted.
>>>
>>> The bill's language prevents an Internet service provider from sharing
>>> information about its individual customers, a committee "myth v. fact"
>>> document<http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/cispamythvactFeb122013v2.pdf> (.pdf)
>>> says.
>>>
>>> Worries that the federal government would be able to read private emails
>>> without a warrant ignores "the highly rapid and automated nature of cyber
>>> threat information sharing," the document also says.
>>>
>>> For more:
>>> - go to <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113hr624> the
>>> THOMAS page for H.R. 624
>>> - go to <http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-624-press-materials> a House
>>> Intelligence Committee webpage with press materials on the bill
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Diego R. Canabarro
>>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>>>
>>> --
>>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
>>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
>>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
>>> Skype: diegocanabarro
>>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
>>> --
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>>
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Diego R. Canabarro
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
>



-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130219/a3c1c5a3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: state-of-the-internet.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1549534 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130219/a3c1c5a3/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 15:31:39 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:31:39 -0800
Subject: [governance] CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates
 quick to reiterate criticism
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiA0Tt2XK5XTn7JGB+8T0nYtHvL1vx7eAhisUeYfMb1Kgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+MV=uGx=KhYC+dHpRYk41zxR2oR-hiWP1dniiYgQwcAg-zizw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAJwbTiAZXeaeOmuZe=LYP09JJ9Y619cSaBN=hPXfyO7=x-2+Gg@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+MV=uHm9ABhRZx00SGLzdPU4_bKQNZXX-muKOyjOzqHNQO7_w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiA0Tt2XK5XTn7JGB+8T0nYtHvL1vx7eAhisUeYfMb1Kgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04ec01ce0e16$f52253a0$df66fae0$@gmail.com>

Here is the link http://visual.ly/state-internet-us

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T.
Tamanikaiwaimaro
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 12:05 PM
To: Diego Rafael Canabarro
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates
quick to reiterate criticism

 

The link is broken indeed. :( I am attaching the copy of the infographic
that I have.

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
<diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

The link for the info-graphic is broken, Sala. 

And I saw your comments on the Bill. :)

 

Regards

Diego

 

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Diego,

There is an interesting infographic, see:
http://www.zingbroadband.com/state-of-internet-infographic on the state of
the Internet in the United States. I am not sure whether the information in
the infographic is authentic but it makes for interesting reading.

On the issue of the CISPA, there are varied causes for concern that exist
with the "access" to information of individuals, organizations and privacy
and the ability to trust that your information is secure and not arbitrarily
exposed.

When you see the recent regulatory trends by the FCC and how former FCC
Chair and Commissioner are now very much in the game, not that there is
anything wrong with it or is there? The view from here is pretty murky.

Aside from CISPA, there is another Cyber Security Bill that is equally
controversial, see:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130126_pandoras_box_new_us_cyber_security_bi
lls_worm_hole_internet/

Kind Regards,
Sala

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
<diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

CISPA backers reintroduce bill; privacy advocates quick to reiterate
criticism

 

 
<http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/cispa-backers-reintroduce-bill-priv
acy-advocates-quick-reiterate-criticism/2013-02-14#ixzz2LGuwIvbU>
http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/cispa-backers-reintroduce-bill-priva
cy-advocates-quick-reiterate-criticism/2013-02-14#ixzz2LGuwIvbU 

 

February 14, 2013 | By  <http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/author/dperera>
David Perera

 

Backers of a controversial cybersecurity bill
<http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/house-approves-cispa/2012-04-30>
approved by the House in April 2012 reintroduced it again Feb. 13 for
consideration by the new Congress.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (
<http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113hr624> H.R. 624) would
create a mechanism for the private sector to share with the federal
government cyber threat information--the Homeland Security Department, or
another federal agency. Critics such as the Center for Democracy and
Technology say the bill language creates an avenue for information on
American Internet users to go to the intelligence community, a criticism CDT
President Leslie Harris
<https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/cybersecurity-legislation-still-fundamenta
lly-flawed-cdt-opposes-cispa> reiterated soon after the bill's
reintroduction.

Privacy groups have also said the bill would allow federal agencies to
repurpose the information they do receive through the information sharing
program, something that goes against privacy principles requiring data to be
used only for the purpose for which it was collected.

The reintroduced bill, like the version that passed the House, says the
government could use the information for cybersecurity itself, as well as
the investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; protection of
individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; protection of
minors from physical or psychological harm; and protection of the national
security of the United States.

Critics have particularly noted the crime and national security provisions,
stating that they could lead to overly broad uses of the data.

Bill co-sponsors Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger
(D-Md.), chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the House
Intelligence Committee, have said much of the criticism is unwarranted.

The bill's language prevents an Internet service provider from sharing
information about its individual customers, a committee "myth v. fact"
<http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/
cispamythvactFeb122013v2.pdf> document (.pdf) says.

Worries that the federal government would be able to read private emails
without a warrant ignores "the highly rapid and automated nature of cyber
threat information sharing," the document also says.

For more:
-  <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.113hr624> go to the THOMAS
page for H.R. 624
-  <http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-624-press-materials> go to a House
Intelligence Committee webpage with press materials on the bill



-- 
Diego R. Canabarro

http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br

diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 <tel:%2B55-51-9244-3425>  (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133
<tel:%2B1-413-362-0133>  (USA)
--

 

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

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

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




-- 

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

P.O. Box 17862

Suva

Fiji

 

Twitter: @SalanietaT

Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro

Tel: +679 3544828 <tel:%2B679%203544828> 

Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <tel:%2B679%20998%202851> 

 

 

 





 

-- 
Diego R. Canabarro

http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 

--
diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br

diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
Skype: diegocanabarro
Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 <tel:%2B55-51-9244-3425>  (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133
<tel:%2B1-413-362-0133>  (USA)
--




-- 

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

P.O. Box 17862

Suva

Fiji

 

Twitter: @SalanietaT

Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro

Tel: +679 3544828

Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130218/dec1aa9c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Feb 18 16:00:19 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:00:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Charter Amendment Poll
In-Reply-To: <CE1A8CC4-A42C-4D29-B37B-636D087DBB69@ella.com>
References: <CAJwbTiD8qOzoMOqx+UGTRT0X4W4_nzwOsm6GGgnH9pOnNtgtsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE1A8CC4-A42C-4D29-B37B-636D087DBB69@ella.com>
Message-ID: <20130218220019.50b952ee@quill.bollow.ch>

Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> On 18 Feb 2013, at 13:45, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> 
> > On the issue of reminders, the role of the Coordinators is to
> > merely facilitate the process, every person on the list, member and
> > subscriber were sent their electronic voting papers. There was
> > substantial discussion on the list and it should have been
> > sufficient for people to be aware that there was a vote underway. 
> 
> Ouch!

I'm in strong agreement with Avri here.

It's been a really big ouch.

And it's my fault. I had been in charge of the specifics of setting
this up, with the kind assistance of Jeremy, and I really regret not
having arranged for sufficient reminders etc to give the charter
amendment proposals a reasonable chance to clear the really high
hurdle of that quorum.

But as Sala has explained, not having done this is not really
sufficient justification for extending the poll, nor for declaring the
poll invalid and starting over.

If there had been consensus in the Caucus to re-open the poll (as
determined e.g. by a formal consensus call with a reasonably long
deadline, of say a week), it would have been my preference to do that,
and I'd have liked to also use the "send reminder" feature of the
polling software, etc.

But it has in the meantime become clear even without a formal consensus
call that we don't have such a consensus.

So Sala and I have come to the conclusion that we really don't see any
valid alternative to declaring the proposals failed.

At least the charter makes clear that charter amendment proposals can
be made at any time. "At any time" includes just after an identical
amendment proposal has failed due to too many distractions and
insufficient reminding.

Again sorry about the ouch!

Greetings,
Norbert

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

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

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

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Feb 19 08:31:37 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:31:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] NomCom: Chair's resignation; request for advice
Message-ID: <20130219143137.55480f97@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC Coordinator hat on]

Gurumurthy Kasinathan (Guru), the non-voting chair of the NomCom for the
CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation, has just informed us as follows:

  "I have been informed today by Parminder Jeet Singh, who is my
  colleague in IT for Change, that he intends to submit his candidature
  to the nomcom for the CSTD WG on EC. When I offered to be the
  non-voting chair of the Nomcom, this decision of his was not clear.
  However, now that I am aware of his intention, I would like to step
  down as the non-voting chair. Even though the non-voting chair only
  guides the processes and does not get into the substantive selection
  processes, it would be best for nomcom members, if I was not the
  chair."

On behalf of the Caucus I would like to hereby thank Guru for the work
done so far, and of course we respect his decision and appreciate his
concerns for the integrity of the process and the credibility of the
outcome of the NomCom's work.

The charter says:

  "A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each
  nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a
  chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one
  nomcom previously."

Therefore please give your advice on who should be appointed non-voting
chair for this NomCom as Guru's successor.

Im view of communication challenges that have already been encountered
by this NomCom, it may be best if the new non-voting chair has good
communication skills in Spanish as well as in English.

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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Feb 19 11:50:00 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:50:00 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] the post Dubai ITU-T - "traitor tracing"
In-Reply-To: <CAKx4trjMi12V0hfYX_gGJewxi-JkhbyFdLc1RSNSCF_ogcZFrg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5123A4A4.6090001@gmail.com>,<CAKx4trjMi12V0hfYX_gGJewxi-JkhbyFdLc1RSNSCF_ogcZFrg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C0617@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

FYI; and ouch: latest forward from ITU courtesy of Tony Rutkowski.

My comment: One issue with English language dominance in Internet-related technical discourses...is others may not be as skilled with English language euphemisms as may be advisable. Certainly by their PR agents; if they had any.

Lee



________________________________
From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:16 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] the post Dubai ITU-T - "traitor tracing"



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tony Rutkowski
Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Subject: the post Dubai ITU-T - "traitor tracing"
To: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>


Hi Dave,

Even the most jaded ITU watcher
will marvel at this new work
proposed yesterday by a new Iranian
ministry for pursuit in ITU-T at
its first post-Dubai security group
meeting.

This is just one of many "new normal"
G89 activities now being pursued,
and being underwritten by voluntary
financial contributions by the U.S.

Maybe IP readership can collectively
ask why the U.S. has not joined the
many other G55 nations that walked
out of the WCIT in reducing their
funding for this kind of activity.

--tony

Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>  | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20130219111902:10851118-7AB0-11E2-A9D6-FA07E334BA9A>     [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] <http://www.listbox.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130219/b92b1437/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: T13-SG17-C-0005!!MSW-E.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 36072 bytes
Desc: T13-SG17-C-0005!!MSW-E.docx
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130219/b92b1437/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Feb 19 12:45:13 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:45:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] re the post Dubai ITU-T - "traitor tracing"
In-Reply-To: <DCC792DD-E672-4F59-BEB9-22B67C918A50@gmail.com>
References: <5123A8ED.9050800@opus1.com>,<DCC792DD-E672-4F59-BEB9-22B67C918A50@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C067C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Since I forwarded the prior red herring doc...here's a comment.
________________________________________
From: DAVID J. FARBER [farber at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:12 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] re the post Dubai ITU-T - "traitor tracing"

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder at Opus1.COM>
Subject: Re: [IP] the post Dubai ITU-T - "traitor tracing"
Date: February 19, 2013 11:31:41 AM EST
To: trutkowski at netmagic.com
Cc: dave at farber.net

Oh, come on, Tony.  I wrote X.6, 21 years ago, and if you've read it, it's a complete piece of useless nonsense which had applicability to X.25 and X.32, both of which are now as irrelevant as SNA.  No one bothered with it then, and certainly no one is going to bother with it now.

You have enough years on the ground to know exactly what this is: some clueless newbie who has no context for what any of this means just wandering around trying to make a contribution because he doesn't know what else to do.

There may be a pile of manure coming out of ITU, but some Iranian contribution to X.6 is not the problem.  You're going to have to come up with a better example (and I am sure you won't have any problems) than that.  Plus, of course, the term "traitor tracing" is completely undefined and could mean ANYTHING in the context of Multicast, from some highly scientific definition of someone "betraying" the multicast group mechanics in some way (maybe failing to re-broadcast or whatever) to a poor translation of "insider threat"---something that security people ARE always interested in.

Let's get real about getting real here...

jms


On 2/19/13 5:16 PM, Dave Farber wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Tony Rutkowski*
> Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
> Subject: the post Dubai ITU-T - "traitor tracing"
> To: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net <mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Even the most jaded ITU watcher
> will marvel at this new work
> proposed yesterday by a new Iranian
> ministry for pursuit in ITU-T at
> its first post-Dubai security group
> meeting.
>
> This is just one of many "new normal"
> G89 activities now being pursued,
> and being underwritten by voluntary
> financial contributions by the U.S.
>
> Maybe IP readership can collectively
> ask why the U.S. has not joined the
> many other G55 nations that walked
> out of the WCIT in reducing their
> funding for this kind of activity.
>
> --tony
>
> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/125482-748a3389> |
> Modify
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&>
> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20130219111902:10851118-7AB0-11E2-A9D6-FA07E334BA9A>
>       [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
>

--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One       Phone: +1 520 324 0494
jms at Opus1.COM                http://www.opus1.com/jms



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20130219121503:E315891C-7AB7-11E2-89B3-FCB62DEEAE83
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

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

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

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

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 15:42:43 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:42:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Promocion=C3=A1ndose=2E=2E=2E_=C2=BFSe_rec?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?omiendan=3F?=
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLtuXfV37UFJNO_C2OQe7XjyWQmOtZ6=7S21bD5ot4KUoA@mail.gmail.com>

¿Que hablan estos señores y otros...?...Son los que piensan proponerse,
quieren impresionar a los del Nom Com...

*Favor los que piensen presentarse ser más ecuánimes en su ética y moral  *






*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/19 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>

>  FYI; and ouch: latest forward from ITU courtesy of Tony Rutkowski.
>
> My comment: One issue with English language dominance in Internet-related
> technical discourses...is others may not be as skilled with English
> language euphemisms as may be advisable. Certainly by their PR agents; if
> they had any.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:16 AM
> *To:* ip
> *Subject:* [IP] the post Dubai ITU-T - "traitor tracing"
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Tony Rutkowski*
> Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2013
> Subject: the post Dubai ITU-T - "traitor tracing"
> To: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Even the most jaded ITU watcher
> will marvel at this new work
> proposed yesterday by a new Iranian
> ministry for pursuit in ITU-T at
> its first post-Dubai security group
> meeting.
>
> This is just one of many "new normal"
> G89 activities now being pursued,
> and being underwritten by voluntary
> financial contributions by the U.S.
>
> Maybe IP readership can collectively
> ask why the U.S. has not joined the
> many other G55 nations that walked
> out of the WCIT in reducing their
> funding for this kind of activity.
>
> --tony
>
>   Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>|
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20130219111902:10851118-7AB0-11E2-A9D6-FA07E334BA9A> <http://www.listbox.com>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130219/140fbcf5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 15:45:13 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:45:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Meetings in Paris
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7n69GBfcqoSO+xFucyVdzouXGyLBsWqGD2Z_hcg0V5wQ@mail.gmail.com>

I notice that the registration (see link below)
http://www.unesco-ci.org/cmscore/civicrm/event/info?id=14&reset=1
includes indication for remote participation.
Registration closes tomorrow (20th February)
A good opportunity to demonstrate demand for remote participation - even if
it does mean waking up very early in the morning!
Deirdre

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130219/1395dc57/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 15:48:35 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:48:35 -0500
Subject: [governance] NomCom: Chair's resignation; request for advice
In-Reply-To: <20130219143137.55480f97@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130219143137.55480f97@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLsvv5Xchz6BTTx66XP2sNnH9yMgh9Txeb7YqPV9ygA2bw@mail.gmail.com>

Yo propongo a Norbert Bollow, para que ocupe el lugar de (Guru)


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/19 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>

> [with IGC Coordinator hat on]
>
> Gurumurthy Kasinathan (Guru), the non-voting chair of the NomCom for the
> CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation, has just informed us as follows:
>
>   "I have been informed today by Parminder Jeet Singh, who is my
>   colleague in IT for Change, that he intends to submit his candidature
>   to the nomcom for the CSTD WG on EC. When I offered to be the
>   non-voting chair of the Nomcom, this decision of his was not clear.
>   However, now that I am aware of his intention, I would like to step
>   down as the non-voting chair. Even though the non-voting chair only
>   guides the processes and does not get into the substantive selection
>   processes, it would be best for nomcom members, if I was not the
>   chair."
>
> On behalf of the Caucus I would like to hereby thank Guru for the work
> done so far, and of course we respect his decision and appreciate his
> concerns for the integrity of the process and the credibility of the
> outcome of the NomCom's work.
>
> The charter says:
>
>   "A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each
>   nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a
>   chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one
>   nomcom previously."
>
> Therefore please give your advice on who should be appointed non-voting
> chair for this NomCom as Guru's successor.
>
> Im view of communication challenges that have already been encountered
> by this NomCom, it may be best if the new non-voting chair has good
> communication skills in Spanish as well as in English.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130219/b6bba796/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 17:22:10 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:22:10 +1200
Subject: [governance] URGENT Register NOW for Remote Participation/Was
 Meetings in Paris
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCRG36HX0EvXX+boc+fM+2ki3V-1uTrhBcB1PaRhWJE_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Thank you Deirdre for alerting us to the deadline for registration for
remote participation. We would like to encourage all those who will not be
physically attending the WSIS but intend to attend remotely to please
register asap.


Kind Regards,
Sala

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> I notice that the registration (see link below)
> http://www.unesco-ci.org/cmscore/civicrm/event/info?id=14&reset=1
> includes indication for remote participation.
> Registration closes tomorrow (20th February)
> A good opportunity to demonstrate demand for remote participation - even
> if it does mean waking up very early in the morning!
> Deirdre
>
> --
> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/815d20be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 19 20:02:57 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:32:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] the post Dubai ITU-T - "traitor tracing"
In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C0617@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <5123A4A4.6090001@gmail.com> <CAKx4trjMi12V0hfYX_gGJewxi-JkhbyFdLc1RSNSCF_ogcZFrg@mail.gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C0617@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <EF229ED7-222B-4638-8BCB-D199605C26E2@hserus.net>

What is the closest euphemism, spy?  Spies who are citizens of a country and spy against it are tried for high treason if caught.

--srs (iPad)

On 19-Feb-2013, at 22:20, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> FYI; and ouch: latest forward from ITU courtesy of Tony Rutkowski.
> 
> My comment: One issue with English language dominance in Internet-related technical discourses...is others may not be as skilled with English language euphemisms as may be advisable. Certainly by their PR agents; if they had any.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/c127d7d0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 20 02:32:05 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:32:05 +0100
Subject: [governance] Please register for remote participation @ WSIS+10
Message-ID: <20130220083205.0da18389@quill.bollow.ch>

Dear all

At the WSIS+10 review event, today Feb 20 seems to be the registration
deadline.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/flagship-project-activities/unesco-and-wsis/wsis-10-review-meeting/

Remote participants are able to register themselves in the same way as
in-person participants. This is something that civil society advocates
of remote participation have been asking for, and it is good to see it
implemented.

It will also be good to see it widely used. :-)

During one of the preparatory sessions for the remote participation
process in which I've (remotely) participated (I'm going to serve as
on-site remote participation moderator for the IRP coalition's
session "Rights-Based Principles and the Internet: Taking Stock and
Moving Forward"), it was mentioned that UNESCO has gotten some special
funding or sponsoring or so to fund the remote participation
infrastructure, and that therefore it is important to UNESCO to have
numbers demonstrating that this has served an important purpose.

I think that most likely the same numbers will also be considered in
deciding how much effort will be put into enabling remote participation
to future events.

So, unless of course you're going to be there in person and you have
registered for that already, please take the step to register as a
remote participant. That contributes to making an important point about
the importance of the voice of all those who for various reasons are
not there.

Again, there seems to be a deadline of today Feb 20.

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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 02:35:00 2013
From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:35:00 -0800
Subject: [governance] Please register for remote participation @ WSIS+10
In-Reply-To: <20130220083205.0da18389@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130220083205.0da18389@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CA+C8XC+OpEJj443dXgM7_pq8=oyGoFcmumigqwBi7xacFFRV=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I just registered for remote participation.

Best regards,
Oksana

2013/2/19 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:
> Dear all
>
> At the WSIS+10 review event, today Feb 20 seems to be the registration
> deadline.
>
> http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/flagship-project-activities/unesco-and-wsis/wsis-10-review-meeting/
>
> Remote participants are able to register themselves in the same way as
> in-person participants. This is something that civil society advocates
> of remote participation have been asking for, and it is good to see it
> implemented.
>
> It will also be good to see it widely used. :-)
>
> During one of the preparatory sessions for the remote participation
> process in which I've (remotely) participated (I'm going to serve as
> on-site remote participation moderator for the IRP coalition's
> session "Rights-Based Principles and the Internet: Taking Stock and
> Moving Forward"), it was mentioned that UNESCO has gotten some special
> funding or sponsoring or so to fund the remote participation
> infrastructure, and that therefore it is important to UNESCO to have
> numbers demonstrating that this has served an important purpose.
>
> I think that most likely the same numbers will also be considered in
> deciding how much effort will be put into enabling remote participation
> to future events.
>
> So, unless of course you're going to be there in person and you have
> registered for that already, please take the step to register as a
> remote participant. That contributes to making an important point about
> the importance of the voice of all those who for various reasons are
> not there.
>
> Again, there seems to be a deadline of today Feb 20.
>
> 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 nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 20 05:19:28 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:19:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
Message-ID: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>

Dear all

As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
have done so.

By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
process.

First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
reasonably quick response was expected.

I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
potential nominees and selection criteria.

For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.

I believe that we have a very good end result:


Opening session:
  Grace Githaiga

"High level" session on Monday afternoon:
  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein

Closing:
  Anita Gurumurthy


I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
widely, as per the email message pasted below.

Greetings,
Norbert


--snip------------------------------------------------------------------

Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:

> I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> civil society

Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)

As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.

Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
you're active in.

Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
also taking into account what in your view may have been
underemphasized by other civil society speakers.

Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
processes.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 20 07:48:41 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:48:41 +0100
Subject: [governance] Recusing myself from matters related to the NomCom for
 the CSTD WG
Message-ID: <20130220134841.16b2c8c5@quill.bollow.ch>

Dear IGC members

Having received an ok from Sala on this matter (I had to ask in
particular to make sure that she wasn't planning to do the same thing,
since that would have put the Caucus into a difficult situation!),
I have decided to put my name forward for consideration by the NomCom
as a possible civil society member of the CSTD WG on Enhanced
Cooperation.

Consequently I recuse myself from now on from all matters related to
the NomCom's work.

This concerns in particular the appointment of a successor for Guru.

Therefore, please contact Sala exclusively for all matters
related to the NomCom that require the attention of a coordinator of
the IGC.

Greetings
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 08:27:20 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:27:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne
 Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology International
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>

Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..

> http://keionline.org/node/1655

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 20 08:53:04 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:53:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] Preparing for the IGF Open Consultation
Message-ID: <20130220145304.1f8a21c3@quill.bollow.ch>

[with IGC coordinator hat on]


Dear all

In regard to the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Open
Consultation on Feb 28 in Paris:

I will be there and available to represent the IGC. However I will be
able to this only effectively to the extent that I get informed in
advance about the viewpoints that we have in the Caucus.

Of course, for the points on which we have reached consensus during
preparation of our written contribution, that consensus will also guide
me in everything that I will say on those points.

But there may be a need to react to proposals of other stakeholder
groups, etc, and hence there is IMO a need for additional preparation.

As far as I can see, the planned synthesis is not available yet.

However all the written contributions from various stakeholder
organizations are available at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf .

Please post any comments you may have, that might be useful for me as
guidance on Feb 28, here on the list.

The draft agenda for the Feb 28 consultation is here:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/February%20Consultation/February-%20Draft%20Agenda.docx

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  Wed Feb 20 09:09:12 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:39:12 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>

Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?

--srs (iPad)

On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:

> Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
> 
>> http://keionline.org/node/1655

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 20 09:19:10 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?

He has confused "3 steps" with "3 strikes".


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 10:00:17 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:00:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5124E501.3020902@gmail.com>

correct apologies

On 2013/02/20 04:19 PM, McTim wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
> He has confused "3 steps" with "3 strikes".
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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  Wed Feb 20 10:12:34 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:12:34 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: Preparar los puntos de vista
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLt0TnGz5nWPhS90fD-kQf3nyxfiryHW76SUKeurwQ_osQ@mail.gmail.com>

Creo que usted, esta bien capacitado para formular o preparar los puntos de
vista de la CIG, Si en el caso no se presentara por parte de los miembros
algún punto de vista.

Un punto para mi es el de ampliar la participación de los países de habla
hispana en la CIG, pues su participación es casi nula, y con ello no se
puede tener un consenso a nivel mundial. Salvo otro parecer


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/20 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>

> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
>
> Dear all
>
> In regard to the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Open
> Consultation on Feb 28 in Paris:
>
> I will be there and available to represent the IGC. However I will be
> able to this only effectively to the extent that I get informed in
> advance about the viewpoints that we have in the Caucus.
>
> Of course, for the points on which we have reached consensus during
> preparation of our written contribution, that consensus will also guide
> me in everything that I will say on those points.
>
> But there may be a need to react to proposals of other stakeholder
> groups, etc, and hence there is IMO a need for additional preparation.
>
> As far as I can see, the planned synthesis is not available yet.
>
> However all the written contributions from various stakeholder
> organizations are available at
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf .
>
> Please post any comments you may have, that might be useful for me as
> guidance on Feb 28, here on the list.
>
> The draft agenda for the Feb 28 consultation is here:
>
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/February%20Consultation/February-%20Draft%20Agenda.docx
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/a6a25a91/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 10:39:39 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:39:39 -0500
Subject: [governance] 2013 outlook from RIPE
Message-ID: <CACAaNxgBdQqDsTWNzEWqHr0MYmPSF2w-MsmSX7frpmRkZ24_Gw@mail.gmail.com>

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/internet-governance-and-the-ripe-ncc-the-year-ahead

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 20 10:47:21 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:47:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] scope of "internet governance" discussions (was Re:
 Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright
 Limitations and Exceptions...)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
	<CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
	<CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130220164721.1f27ec47@quill.bollow.ch>

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> > Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow
> > missed?

There are different understandings of the term "Internet governance".

WGIG gave us the following working definition:

  Internet governance is the development and application by Governments,
  the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of
  shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and
  programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.

On the basis of this it is possible to take the position that copyright
law as a whole, especially international copyright law, is a shared
principle and norm that today contributes to shaping the evolution and
use of the Internet.

I have personally for a long time preferred this kind of very broad
interpretation of Internet governance. A strong contributing factor to
this preference was that discussions at the IGF, say on the topic of
copyright, have, from my perspective at least, been much more
interesting than what was going on at other WSIS followup activities
such as WSIS Forum.

I'm in the process of slowly changing my view on this however, at
least in regard to our Caucus, and I now tend to think that it would be
beneficial to somehow bifurcate our "civil society" conversation into
one that is really focused on aspects that specifically refer to
governance of what makes the Internet work, and another separate
conversation on broader "information society" topics.

With "separate" conversations I mean that there would be two mailing
lists and somewhat heavy-handed moving of conversations that emerge on
the wrong list to the list onto which they belong -- I think that that
kind of action is necessary in order to make such a split work in
practice. Someone would need to do the work of forwarding messages to
the right list and then "killing the thread" by means of announcing
"this thread has been moving" and then preventing it from continuing in
the wrong place by means of a Subject: based rejection rule at the
mailing list server.

Any such approach involving "killing threads" certainly has
the disadvantage that it could lead to complaints about "censorship",
even if in reality it of course should not be censorship, but rather a
matter of moving conversation threads to the forum where they belong.
Of course everyone who is interested in both types of conversation
threads would be on both mailing lists, so really no-one should really
have a lot to complain about.

The key disadvantage in keeping the broad society-oriented
conversations and the more specifically Internet related conversations
on the same list is that in the current situation, some people with very
significant expertise (but no interest in participating in both kinds
of conversation) are very dissatisfied, some to the point of no longer
actively contributing.

I explicitly don't want to take any position yet on how this would be
addressed at the organisational level. (Should this Caucus have two
discussion mailing lists with an overlapping subscriber base but a
different thematic scope? Should this Caucus somehow create an
"Information Society Caucus" as a spin-off? Should some group of us,
perhaps together with others from the WSIS+10 community, formally
independently create a new caucus with a very broad thematic scope
covering all WSIS topics?)

I think that if this idea evolves into a concrete proposal on what could
be done, that will probably involve changing the Charter, and
therefore the decision-making process would be handled according to
the rules for charter amendment proposals. So procedurally, even if
very broad agreement were achieved that such a split up is a good
idea, in view of in particular the quorum rule, it might still be very
hard to get the decision made.


McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> replied to Suresh, in reference to the
contributor who forwarded the message titled "Why do US and EU trade
negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions...":

> He has confused "3 steps" with "3 strikes".

I understand that this kind of remark may be interpreted as being funny,
but I think that it is not funny at all when in a group there are a few
who are again and again targeted by this kind of remarks.

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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 10:52:22 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:52:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: Apoyo a Norbert Bollow a la CSTD- WG
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLuF+oFFa3fR48EFDS145pJ=6XQseLhAQ7deQgttLfVPAA@mail.gmail.com>

Mis estimados amigos del Nom Com, apoyo a Norbert Bollow para la CSTD WG



*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/20 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>

> Dear IGC members
>
> Having received an ok from Sala on this matter (I had to ask in
> particular to make sure that she wasn't planning to do the same thing,
> since that would have put the Caucus into a difficult situation!),
> I have decided to put my name forward for consideration by the NomCom
> as a possible civil society member of the CSTD WG on Enhanced
> Cooperation.
>
> Consequently I recuse myself from now on from all matters related to
> the NomCom's work.
>
> This concerns in particular the appointment of a successor for Guru.
>
> Therefore, please contact Sala exclusively for all matters
> related to the NomCom that require the attention of a coordinator of
> the IGC.
>
> Greetings
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/4b500a1d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 11:01:46 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:01:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Preparar los puntos de vista
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLt0TnGz5nWPhS90fD-kQf3nyxfiryHW76SUKeurwQ_osQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAYFVLt0TnGz5nWPhS90fD-kQf3nyxfiryHW76SUKeurwQ_osQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN46AgtkLx3R-z7SJV6KuMEaMnkHKkzFO4RBKdjPLO+PCA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jose Felix,
I should have answered you before but Ginger did it for me - "we" as a
group are responsible.

Considering your latest message - presenting the ideas of a group of
people, especially a group as diverse as this one, is always unfortunately
somewhat difficult. So I think that if we have ideas towards a consensus
opinion then we should give them to Norbert.
However since there is the possibility of remote participation - and I
imagine that with UNESCO we can rely on the availability of interpretation
as well??? - then as many of us as possible should attempt to be there,
physically or virtually.

Which takes me to your second sentence with which  I agree completely.
Speaking for myself I am very happy to hear a different language on the
list, even though my Spanish is not very good. It will be a major challenge
for me if this phenomenon extends to the languages of Asia and Africa, and
the native languages of other countries, but I still believe strongly that
this is a goal we should aim for.

Recently the list has been discussing a definition for "civil society", but
the criterion "must read and write English" has, thankfully, not been
raised :-)
Best wishes
Deirdre

Querido Jose Felix,
Debería haberte respondido antes, pero Ginger lo hizo por mí - "nosotros"
como grupo son responsables.

Teniendo en cuenta su reciente mensaje - la presentación de las ideas de un
grupo de personas, especialmente un grupo tan diverso como éste, siempre es
por desgracia un poco difícil. Así que creo que si tenemos ideas hacia un
consenso de opinión, deberíamos darles a Norbert.
Sin embargo, dado que existe la posibilidad de participación a distancia -
y me imagino que con la UNESCO que podemos confiar en la disponibilidad de
interpretación también??? - A continuación, ya que muchos de nosotros como
sea posible debe tratar de estar allí, físicamente o virtualmente.

Lo cual me lleva a la segunda frase con la que estoy completamente de
acuerdo. Por mi parte estoy muy feliz de escuchar un idioma diferente en la
lista, aunque mi español no es muy bueno. Será un gran desafío para mí si
este fenómeno se extiende a las lenguas de Asia y África, y las lenguas
nativas de otros países, pero todavía creo firmemente que este es un
objetivo que debemos aspirar.

Recientemente, la lista ha estado discutiendo una definición de "sociedad
civil", pero el criterio "debe leer y escribir en Inglés" tiene, por
suerte, no se ha planteado :-)
¡Mis mejores deseos
Deirdre (with help from Google - I'm not happy with "por desgracia")

On 20 February 2013 11:12, José Félix Arias Ynche <jaryn56 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Creo que usted, esta bien capacitado para formular o preparar los puntos
> de vista de la CIG, Si en el caso no se presentara por parte de los
> miembros algún punto de vista.
>
> Un punto para mi es el de ampliar la participación de los países de habla
> hispana en la CIG, pues su participación es casi nula, y con ello no se
> puede tener un consenso a nivel mundial. Salvo otro parecer
>
>
> *Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
> *                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*
>
>
> 2013/2/20 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>
>> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>>
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> In regard to the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Open
>> Consultation on Feb 28 in Paris:
>>
>> I will be there and available to represent the IGC. However I will be
>> able to this only effectively to the extent that I get informed in
>> advance about the viewpoints that we have in the Caucus.
>>
>> Of course, for the points on which we have reached consensus during
>> preparation of our written contribution, that consensus will also guide
>> me in everything that I will say on those points.
>>
>> But there may be a need to react to proposals of other stakeholder
>> groups, etc, and hence there is IMO a need for additional preparation.
>>
>> As far as I can see, the planned synthesis is not available yet.
>>
>> However all the written contributions from various stakeholder
>> organizations are available at
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf .
>>
>> Please post any comments you may have, that might be useful for me as
>> guidance on Feb 28, here on the list.
>>
>> The draft agenda for the Feb 28 consultation is here:
>>
>> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/February%20Consultation/February-%20Draft%20Agenda.docx
>>
>> 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/56f6ce51/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 20 11:10:00 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:10:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] scope of "internet governance" discussions (was
 Re: Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright
 Limitations and Exceptions...)
In-Reply-To: <20130220164721.1f27ec47@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
	<CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
	<CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130220164721.1f27ec47@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20130220171000.23cf9994@quill.bollow.ch>

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> replied to Suresh, in reference to the
> contributor who forwarded the message titled "Why do US and EU trade
> negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions...":
> 
> > He has confused "3 steps" with "3 strikes".
> 
> I understand that this kind of remark may be interpreted as being
> funny, but I think that it is not funny at all when in a group there
> are a few who are again and again targeted by this kind of remarks.

Oops it turns out, as Riaz has indicated, that what McTim had written
was actually the truth and not, as I had thought, a bad joke.

My apologies for misunderstanding.

The other stuff that I wrote, that it might make sense to have a more
technically focused governance mailing list and a separate one on
broader governance of information society issues is of course
independent of that misunderstanding.

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  Wed Feb 20 11:15:09 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:45:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] scope of "internet governance" discussions (was
 Re: Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright
 Limitations and Exceptions...)
In-Reply-To: <20130220171000.23cf9994@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com> <20130220164721.1f27ec47@quill.bollow.ch> <20130220171000.23cf9994@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <2D9B74CC-7128-4057-8D0C-0E584D182011@hserus.net>

I support a separation of the lists, and thank you for bringing that up.

--srs (iPad)

On 20-Feb-2013, at 21:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> replied to Suresh, in reference to the
>> contributor who forwarded the message titled "Why do US and EU trade
>> negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions...":
>> 
>>> He has confused "3 steps" with "3 strikes".
>> 
>> I understand that this kind of remark may be interpreted as being
>> funny, but I think that it is not funny at all when in a group there
>> are a few who are again and again targeted by this kind of remarks.
> 
> Oops it turns out, as Riaz has indicated, that what McTim had written
> was actually the truth and not, as I had thought, a bad joke.
> 
> My apologies for misunderstanding.
> 
> The other stuff that I wrote, that it might make sense to have a more
> technically focused governance mailing list and a separate one on
> broader governance of information society issues is of course
> independent of that misunderstanding.
> 
> 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Feb 20 11:36:37 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:36:37 +0100
Subject: SV: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

This has my full support. 
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Fra: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org på vegne af Norbert Bollow
Sendt: on 20-02-2013 11:19
Til: IGC
Emne: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at WSIS+10 in Paris



Dear all

As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
have done so.

By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
process.

First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
reasonably quick response was expected.

I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
potential nominees and selection criteria.

For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.

I believe that we have a very good end result:


Opening session:
  Grace Githaiga

"High level" session on Monday afternoon:
  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein

Closing:
  Anita Gurumurthy


I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
widely, as per the email message pasted below.

Greetings,
Norbert


--snip------------------------------------------------------------------

Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:

> I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> civil society

Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)

As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.

Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
you're active in.

Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
also taking into account what in your view may have been
underemphasized by other civil society speakers.

Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
processes.

Greetings,
Norbert




-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 12:13:48 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:13:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] scope of "internet governance" discussions (was
 Re: Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright
 Limitations and Exceptions...)
In-Reply-To: <20130220171000.23cf9994@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com> <20130220164721.1f27ec47@quill.bollow.ch> <20130220171000.23cf9994@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <1B0AB517-2111-40E1-8E72-A2ACF8ADF842@gmail.com>

And legitimacy issues would be placed on which list?

...,...

On 20 Feb 2013, at 6:10 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> 
>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> replied to Suresh, in reference to the
>> contributor who forwarded the message titled "Why do US and EU trade
>> negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions...":
>> 
>>> He has confused "3 steps" with "3 strikes".
>> 
>> I understand that this kind of remark may be interpreted as being
>> funny, but I think that it is not funny at all when in a group there
>> are a few who are again and again targeted by this kind of remarks.
> 
> Oops it turns out, as Riaz has indicated, that what McTim had written
> was actually the truth and not, as I had thought, a bad joke.
> 
> My apologies for misunderstanding.
> 
> The other stuff that I wrote, that it might make sense to have a more
> technically focused governance mailing list and a separate one on
> broader governance of information society issues is of course
> independent of that misunderstanding.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 20 12:29:04 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:29:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: Preparar los puntos de vista
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN46AgtkLx3R-z7SJV6KuMEaMnkHKkzFO4RBKdjPLO+PCA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAYFVLt0TnGz5nWPhS90fD-kQf3nyxfiryHW76SUKeurwQ_osQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN46AgtkLx3R-z7SJV6KuMEaMnkHKkzFO4RBKdjPLO+PCA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130220182904.23ab4754@quill.bollow.ch>

Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> However since there is the possibility of remote participation - and I
> imagine that with UNESCO we can rely on the availability of
> interpretation as well???

I don't know about the IGF "open consultations" specifically, but at
the main WSIS+10 conference, the main sessions and *some* of the
workshop will have interpretation into French. I haven't heard anything
about provisions for Spanish or any other language besides English.

Do we have consensus that if the "open consultations" don't support at
least the five UN languages, including for remote participants, they're
definitely not open enough?

If we have agreement on this point, that's something that I could point
out while 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 jaryn56 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 12:29:40 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:29:40 -0500
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLtc1i1EB648KjGoOxzeSeUs0+iMjA-jvx_2RHoe-jxFrw@mail.gmail.com>

This has my full support.
Arias

*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/20 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> This has my full support.
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org på vegne af Norbert Bollow
> Sendt: on 20-02-2013 11:19
> Til: IGC
> Emne: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
> WSIS+10 in Paris
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
> As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> have done so.
>
> By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> process.
>
> First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> reasonably quick response was expected.
>
> I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> potential nominees and selection criteria.
>
> For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
>
> I believe that we have a very good end result:
>
>
> Opening session:
>   Grace Githaiga
>
> "High level" session on Monday afternoon:
>   Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein
>
> Closing:
>   Anita Gurumurthy
>
>
> I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> widely, as per the email message pasted below.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
>
> > I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> > civil society
>
> Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
>
> As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
>
> Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> you're active in.
>
> Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> also taking into account what in your view may have been
> underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
>
> Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> processes.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/616509a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 12:35:42 2013
From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:35:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAPcSPKUHqD90c1oiZjRmNhvuvr4oYOOM_yLVAVqc6C+Xhi2PEw@mail.gmail.com>

+1 full support


Baudouin


2013/2/20 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>

> Dear all
>
> As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> have done so.
>
> By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> process.
>
> First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> reasonably quick response was expected.
>
> I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> potential nominees and selection criteria.
>
> For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
>
> I believe that we have a very good end result:
>
>
> Opening session:
>   Grace Githaiga
>
> "High level" session on Monday afternoon:
>   Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein
>
> Closing:
>   Anita Gurumurthy
>
>
> I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> widely, as per the email message pasted below.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
>
> > I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> > civil society
>
> Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
>
> As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
>
> Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> you're active in.
>
> Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> also taking into account what in your view may have been
> underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
>
> Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> processes.
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/
ACADEMIE DES TIC
At-Large Member
NCSG Member

email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com
         Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net
tél:+243998983491
skype:b.schombe
wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net
blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/ae6e4230/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 20 12:42:20 2013
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:42:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>


Dear All
As Nobert informed members, I will be the CS speaker during the opening ceremony. I have been allotted five minutes and would like to request members on these lists to let me know if there are issues you would like me to raise during the opening ceremony.  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein will be speakers during the  "High level" session on Monday afternoon, while Anita Gurumurthy will speak during the closing. 
My bit is only for the opening and would like to feel that I be highlighting your concerns. 

Looking forward to hearing from you.RgdsGrace
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:19:28 +0100
> From: nb at bollow.ch
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at WSIS+10 in Paris
> 
> Dear all
> 
> As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> have done so.
> 
> By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> process.
> 
> First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> reasonably quick response was expected.
> 
> I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> potential nominees and selection criteria.
> 
> For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
> 
> I believe that we have a very good end result:
> 
> 
> Opening session:
>   Grace Githaiga
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> widely, as per the email message pasted below.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
> 
> > I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> > civil society
> 
> Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
> 
> As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
> 
> Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> you're active in.
> 
> Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> also taking into account what in your view may have been
> underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
> 
> Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> processes.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/51ab94ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 20 12:44:29 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:44:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] scope of "internet governance" discussions (was
 Re: Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright
 Limitations and Exceptions...)
In-Reply-To: <1B0AB517-2111-40E1-8E72-A2ACF8ADF842@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
	<CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
	<CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130220164721.1f27ec47@quill.bollow.ch>
	<20130220171000.23cf9994@quill.bollow.ch>
	<1B0AB517-2111-40E1-8E72-A2ACF8ADF842@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130220184429.64809405@quill.bollow.ch>

riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:

> And legitimacy issues would be placed on which list?

The general rule that I'd propose is this:

  Anything that specifically refers to a governance institution or forum
  that is explicitly focused on the Internet, or to other authoritative
  rule-setting specifically addressing the Internet, should go onto the
  "Internet governance" list, everything else should go onto the
  information society list.

If this rule were adopted, then:

Legitimacy issues regarding say root zone management would go on the
Internet governance mailing list. Legitimacy issues regarding e.g.
copyright (e.g. the point that was powerfully brought up at the Baku
IGF that copyright law for the digital age has been written by "digital
immigrants" rather than by "digital natives") would go on the
information society mailing list. Broad legitimacy discussions
touching both aspects would go on the information society mailing list.

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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 12:54:31 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:54:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch> <BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5AEMG-nfCBZ-d=9Q=ahe+JcnKzm4xwHDAOqf=0XGGtSQ@mail.gmail.com>

The choice of speakers has my support.
Perhaps the language issue can be brought up in these sessions as well?
Deirdre

On 20 February 2013 13:42, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Dear All
>
> As Nobert informed members, I will be the CS speaker during the opening
> ceremony. I have been allotted five minutes and would like to request
> members on these lists to let me know if there are issues you would like me
> to raise during the *opening ceremony.*  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael
> Gurstein will be speakers during the  "High level" session on Monday
> afternoon, while Anita Gurumurthy will speak during the closing.
>
> My bit is only for the opening and would like to feel that I be
> highlighting your concerns.
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you.
> Rgds
> Grace
>
> > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:19:28 +0100
> > From: nb at bollow.ch
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
> WSIS+10 in Paris
>
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> > As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> > Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> > Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> > sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> > convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> > have done so.
> >
> > By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> > nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> > and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> > up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> > process.
> >
> > First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> > recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> > reasonably quick response was expected.
> >
> > I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> > in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> > potential nominees and selection criteria.
> >
> > For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> > where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> > for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
> >
> > I believe that we have a very good end result:
> >
> >
> > Opening session:
> > Grace Githaiga
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> > widely, as per the email message pasted below.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> > > civil society
> >
> > Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> > representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
> >
> > As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> > and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> > represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> > to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
> >
> > Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> > encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> > make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> > Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> > you're active in.
> >
> > Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> > civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> > and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> > points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> > emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> > also taking into account what in your view may have been
> > underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
> >
> > Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> > perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> > draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> > overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> > processes.
> >
> > 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/8c779e02/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jaryn56 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 12:55:34 2013
From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:55:34 -0500
Subject: [governance] scope of "internet governance" discussions (was
 Re: Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright
 Limitations and Exceptions...)
In-Reply-To: <20130220184429.64809405@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130220164721.1f27ec47@quill.bollow.ch> <20130220171000.23cf9994@quill.bollow.ch>
 <1B0AB517-2111-40E1-8E72-A2ACF8ADF842@gmail.com> <20130220184429.64809405@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAAYFVLvG6EpRg7GZZnapmhzeUx60nE-LrcUVpw2kMSOHTseNJA@mail.gmail.com>

Estoy de acuerdo...


*Cordialmente:         José Félix Arias Ynche*
*                        Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo*


2013/2/20 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>

> riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And legitimacy issues would be placed on which list?
>
> The general rule that I'd propose is this:
>
>   Anything that specifically refers to a governance institution or forum
>   that is explicitly focused on the Internet, or to other authoritative
>   rule-setting specifically addressing the Internet, should go onto the
>   "Internet governance" list, everything else should go onto the
>   information society list.
>
> If this rule were adopted, then:
>
> Legitimacy issues regarding say root zone management would go on the
> Internet governance mailing list. Legitimacy issues regarding e.g.
> copyright (e.g. the point that was powerfully brought up at the Baku
> IGF that copyright law for the digital age has been written by "digital
> immigrants" rather than by "digital natives") would go on the
> information society mailing list. Broad legitimacy discussions
> touching both aspects would go on the information society mailing list.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/0a1b3b00/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 12:59:16 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:59:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Preparar los puntos de vista
In-Reply-To: <20130220182904.23ab4754@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAAYFVLt0TnGz5nWPhS90fD-kQf3nyxfiryHW76SUKeurwQ_osQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN46AgtkLx3R-z7SJV6KuMEaMnkHKkzFO4RBKdjPLO+PCA@mail.gmail.com> <20130220182904.23ab4754@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN5moDJPnGC9mvsTSgY9f7_QOAGc84xyxw0eoL2+xV00mA@mail.gmail.com>

As far as I'm concerned yes definitely.
Deirdre

On 20 February 2013 13:29, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However since there is the possibility of remote participation - and I
> > imagine that with UNESCO we can rely on the availability of
> > interpretation as well???
>
> I don't know about the IGF "open consultations" specifically, but at
> the main WSIS+10 conference, the main sessions and *some* of the
> workshop will have interpretation into French. I haven't heard anything
> about provisions for Spanish or any other language besides English.
>
> Do we have consensus that if the "open consultations" don't support at
> least the five UN languages, including for remote participants, they're
> definitely not open enough?
>
> If we have agreement on this point, that's something that I could point
> out while there.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>



-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/b7fa089d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 13:01:07 2013
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:01:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch> <BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Grace:

Thanks for reaching out.

I would certainly appreciate if you could spare 45 secs or thereabouts to
raise awareness, by mention, of the challenges facing Small Island
Developing States.

For guidance, there is some excellent information emanating from the
recently held IGF-12 Workshop on a similar topic at
http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no81-internet-governance-and-sustainable-development-case-small-island-developing-statesas
well as at
http://www.commonwealthigf.org/blog/internet-governance-challenges-in-small-island-developing-states-raising-the-volume-of-our-voices/

Thanks in advance.

Rgds,

Tracy


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  Dear All
>
> As Nobert informed members, I will be the CS speaker during the opening
> ceremony. I have been allotted five minutes and would like to request
> members on these lists to let me know if there are issues you would like me
> to raise during the *opening ceremony.*  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael
> Gurstein will be speakers during the  "High level" session on Monday
> afternoon, while Anita Gurumurthy will speak during the closing.
>
> My bit is only for the opening and would like to feel that I be
> highlighting your concerns.
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you.
> Rgds
> Grace
>
> > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:19:28 +0100
> > From: nb at bollow.ch
> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
> WSIS+10 in Paris
>
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> > As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> > Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> > Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> > sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> > convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> > have done so.
> >
> > By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> > nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> > and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> > up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> > process.
> >
> > First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> > recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> > reasonably quick response was expected.
> >
> > I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> > in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> > potential nominees and selection criteria.
> >
> > For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> > where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> > for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
> >
> > I believe that we have a very good end result:
> >
> >
> > Opening session:
> > Grace Githaiga
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> > widely, as per the email message pasted below.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> > > civil society
> >
> > Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> > representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
> >
> > As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> > and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> > represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> > to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
> >
> > Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> > encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> > make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> > Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> > you're active in.
> >
> > Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> > civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> > and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> > points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> > emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> > also taking into account what in your view may have been
> > underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
> >
> > Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> > perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> > draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> > overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> > processes.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/4fc037d8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 13:13:28 2013
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:13:28 -0600
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch> <BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>
 <CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALCecM9EWYWJGL1jyqVCQqZoTq-zCMEEZLOr19mjDNJ=XJFLcQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Grace, Thanks for this opportunity for input.

I think it is very important to recognize the efforts being made to provide
accessible remote participation for this meeting, improving possibilities
for inclusion and active engagement in this significant global policy
process. It does see that the WSIS should be setting an example, and we are
really excited to see this big step forward, which strongly supports timely
interventions from remote participants, and registration as participants in
the WSIS +10.

Thanks!
Ginger

Ginger (Virginia) Paque

VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu
Diplo Foundation
Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme
www.diplomacy.edu/ig
**
**


On 20 February 2013 12:01, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google <
tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Grace:
>
> Thanks for reaching out.
>
> I would certainly appreciate if you could spare 45 secs or thereabouts to
> raise awareness, by mention, of the challenges facing Small Island
> Developing States.
>
> For guidance, there is some excellent information emanating from the
> recently held IGF-12 Workshop on a similar topic at
> http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no81-internet-governance-and-sustainable-development-case-small-island-developing-statesas well as at
> http://www.commonwealthigf.org/blog/internet-governance-challenges-in-small-island-developing-states-raising-the-volume-of-our-voices/
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Tracy
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Dear All
>>
>> As Nobert informed members, I will be the CS speaker during the opening
>> ceremony. I have been allotted five minutes and would like to request
>> members on these lists to let me know if there are issues you would like me
>> to raise during the *opening ceremony.*  Anriette Esterhuysen and
>> Michael Gurstein will be speakers during the  "High level" session on
>> Monday afternoon, while Anita Gurumurthy will speak during the closing.
>>
>> My bit is only for the opening and would like to feel that I be
>> highlighting your concerns.
>>
>> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>> Rgds
>> Grace
>>
>> > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:19:28 +0100
>> > From: nb at bollow.ch
>> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
>> WSIS+10 in Paris
>>
>> >
>> > Dear all
>> >
>> > As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
>> > Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
>> > Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
>> > sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
>> > convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
>> > have done so.
>> >
>> > By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
>> > nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
>> > and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
>> > up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
>> > process.
>> >
>> > First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
>> > recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
>> > reasonably quick response was expected.
>> >
>> > I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
>> > in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
>> > potential nominees and selection criteria.
>> >
>> > For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
>> > where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
>> > for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
>> >
>> > I believe that we have a very good end result:
>> >
>> >
>> > Opening session:
>> > Grace Githaiga
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
>> > widely, as per the email message pasted below.
>> >
>> > Greetings,
>> > Norbert
>> >
>> >
>> > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
>> > > civil society
>> >
>> > Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
>> > representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
>> >
>> > As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
>> > and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
>> > represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
>> > to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
>> >
>> > Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
>> > encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
>> > make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
>> > Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
>> > you're active in.
>> >
>> > Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
>> > civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
>> > and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
>> > points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
>> > emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
>> > also taking into account what in your view may have been
>> > underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
>> >
>> > Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
>> > perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
>> > draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
>> > overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
>> > processes.
>> >
>> > 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/119b0f14/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kovenronald at aol.com  Wed Feb 20 13:32:27 2013
From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:32:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [governance] Re: Preparar los puntos de vista
In-Reply-To: <20130220182904.23ab4754@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <CAAYFVLt0TnGz5nWPhS90fD-kQf3nyxfiryHW76SUKeurwQ_osQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMz5XN46AgtkLx3R-z7SJV6KuMEaMnkHKkzFO4RBKdjPLO+PCA@mail.gmail.com> <20130220182904.23ab4754@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <8CFDDAFC49EC002-1418-1AEBB@webmail-m139.sysops.aol.com>


Dear All --


Just who do you think will pay for interpretation into 6 languages ? French and English are the official working languages of the UN system, and UN meetings in those 2 languages is standard. Interpretation in all 6 official UN languages is the exception, not the rule. When still other languages are requested, the interpreters must be paid for by the governments requesting them. 


Given that UNESCO has lost 22% of its budget because of US law and is involved in drastic budget-cutting, you are unlikely to get a very sympathetic hearing for a demand of more than the standard working languages. 


There's also a problem of the image that civil society projects. If it is even more demanding of pricey services than even member-state governments are, it risks coming across as demanding spoiled children.


Bests, Rony Koven



-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Cc: José Félix Arias Yn
 che <jaryn56 at gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 6:30 pm
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Preparar los puntos de vista


Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> However since there is the possibility of remote participation - and I
> imagine that with UNESCO we can rely on the availability of
> interpretation as well???

I don't know about the IGF "open consultations" specifically, but at
the main WSIS+10 conference, the main sessions and *some* of the
workshop will have interpretation into French. I haven't heard anything
about provisions for Spanish or any other language besides English.

Do we have consensus that if the "open consultations" don't support at
least the five UN languages, including for remote participants, they're
definitely not open enough?

If we have agreement on this point, that's something that I could point
out while there.

Greetings,
Norbert


 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/38861748/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 13:48:06 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:48:06 -0400
Subject: Fwd: [governance] Re: Preparar los puntos de vista
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4MTZMQVDeY53jO0H5vWpbomTgFnRZ5D2jtsy0D3gk4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAYFVLt0TnGz5nWPhS90fD-kQf3nyxfiryHW76SUKeurwQ_osQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMz5XN46AgtkLx3R-z7SJV6KuMEaMnkHKkzFO4RBKdjPLO+PCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130220182904.23ab4754@quill.bollow.ch> <8CFDDAFC49EC002-1418-1AEBB@webmail-m139.sysops.aol.com>
 <CAMz5XN4MTZMQVDeY53jO0H5vWpbomTgFnRZ5D2jtsy0D3gk4Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4JguA_ZTQ8pug7beHJRNzZb0Scw4nZ79VaXrmpj7D7kA@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry - I pressed Reply instead of Reply All.
Deirdre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Date: 20 February 2013 14:46
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Preparar los puntos de vista
To: Koven Ronald <kovenronald at aol.com>


I think that "we" will pay (unless we're based in the United States), as in
the end "we" pay for everything, being at the bottom of this particular
pyramid (and most other pyramids come to that).
But perhaps you mistook my point - which I didn't elaborate very clearly -
that UNESCO since 2008 has been the champion of linguistic diversity.
I hear from an informed friend in Paris that " the IGF open consultations
will be in 6 languages but the rest, only in EN some and in EN/FR others. The
program is only in English <https://www.unesco-ci.org/cmscore/events> as
every other material distributed until now."
If we might sound like spoiled children I am wondering who our "elders and
betters" would be? :-)
Deirdre


On 20 February 2013 14:32, Koven Ronald <kovenronald at aol.com> wrote:

> Dear All --
>
>  Just who do you think will pay for interpretation into 6 languages ?
> French and English are the official working languages of the UN system, and
> UN meetings in those 2 languages is standard. Interpretation in all 6
> official UN languages is the exception, not the rule. When still other
> languages are requested, the interpreters must be paid for by the
> governments requesting them.
>
>  Given that UNESCO has lost 22% of its budget because of US law and is
> involved in drastic budget-cutting, you are unlikely to get a very
> sympathetic hearing for a demand of more than the standard working
> languages.
>
>  There's also a problem of the image that civil society projects. If it
> is even more demanding of pricey services than even member-state
> governments are, it risks coming across as demanding spoiled children.
>
>  Bests, Rony Koven
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> To: governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Deirdre Williams <
> williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
> Cc: José Félix Arias Yn
> che <jaryn56 at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 6:30 pm
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Preparar los puntos de vista
>
>  Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > However since there is the possibility of remote participation - and I
> > imagine that with UNESCO we can rely on the availability of
> > interpretation as well???
>
> I don't know about the IGF "open consultations" specifically, but at
> the main WSIS+10 conference, the main sessions and *some* of the
> workshop will have interpretation into French. I haven't heard anything
> about provisions for Spanish or any other language besides English.
>
> Do we have consensus that if the "open consultations" don't support at
> least the five UN languages, including for remote participants, they're
> definitely not open enough?
>
> If we have agreement on this point, that's something that I could point
> out while there.
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979



-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/79f5a6c3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 14:12:34 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:12:34 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
	<CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>
> --srs (iPad)
>

Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet
Governance thematic area. See page 7:

"*23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)*
*Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.*
• While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of
holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise
nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and
whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed
by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are
concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy,
and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent
such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market
oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the
perceived unbalanced."

 Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information
Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's
Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from
Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.

For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be
used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The
criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.

The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being
mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of
course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are
widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.

There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the
Internet and here are just three:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html
https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/



> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
> >
> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/e804cb7a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 14:55:15 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:55:15 -0800
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch> <BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl> <CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0e9501ce0fa4$342ab3b0$9c801b10$@gmail.com>

Anriette and I have both been alloted 5 minutes to contribute to the High
Level panel on Tuesday afternoon (2.30 pm) (I'm not yet sure of the format
but it sounds as though we are contributing from a floor mike.

 

Our task is to contribute to an "exchange on major developments since
2003/2005, new challenges as well as possible post-2015 arrangements" i.e.
the past present and future of the Information Society etc. (in 5 minutes!).

 

Bullet points folks?

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F.
Hackshaw @ Google
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:01 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Grace Githaiga
Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
WSIS+10 in Paris

 

Hi Grace:

 

Thanks for reaching out.

 

I would certainly appreciate if you could spare 45 secs or thereabouts to
raise awareness, by mention, of the challenges facing Small Island
Developing States.

 

For guidance, there is some excellent information emanating from the
recently held IGF-12 Workshop on a similar topic at
http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no81-internet-governance-and-sustainabl
e-development-case-small-island-developing-states as well as at
http://www.commonwealthigf.org/blog/internet-governance-challenges-in-small-
island-developing-states-raising-the-volume-of-our-voices/

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Rgds,

 

Tracy

 

 

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>
wrote:

Dear All

 

As Nobert informed members, I will be the CS speaker during the opening
ceremony. I have been allotted five minutes and would like to request
members on these lists to let me know if there are issues you would like me
to raise during the opening ceremony.  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael
Gurstein will be speakers during the  "High level" session on Monday
afternoon, while Anita Gurumurthy will speak during the closing. 

 

My bit is only for the opening and would like to feel that I be highlighting
your concerns. 

 

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Rgds

Grace

 

> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:19:28 +0100
> From: nb at bollow.ch
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
WSIS+10 in Paris


> 
> Dear all
> 
> As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> have done so.
> 
> By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> process.
> 
> First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> reasonably quick response was expected.
> 
> I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> potential nominees and selection criteria.
> 
> For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
> 
> I believe that we have a very good end result:
> 
> 
> Opening session:
> Grace Githaiga
> 
> 
> 
> 

> I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> widely, as per the email message pasted below.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
> 
> > I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> > civil society
> 
> Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
> 
> As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
> 
> Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> you're active in.
> 
> Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> also taking into account what in your view may have been
> underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
> 
> Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> processes.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/1577abf0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 20 15:03:26 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:03:26 +0100
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society
 representation at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <0e9501ce0fa4$342ab3b0$9c801b10$@gmail.com>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>
	<CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com>
	<0e9501ce0fa4$342ab3b0$9c801b10$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130220210326.49894c33@quill.bollow.ch>

Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anriette and I have both been alloted 5 minutes to contribute to the
> High Level panel on Tuesday afternoon (2.30 pm)

Sorry to jump in here with a nitpick, but that panel is on Monday
afternoon.

Just to avoid any confusion as much as possible. :-)

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  Wed Feb 20 15:11:58 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:11:58 -0800
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society
 representation at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <20130220210326.49894c33@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>	<BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>	<CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com>	<0e9501ce0fa4$342ab3b0$9c801b10$@gmail.com> <20130220210326.49894c33@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <0ec101ce0fa6$8a4e5420$9eeafc60$@gmail.com>

Whoops :(

M

-----Original Message-----
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
[mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of
Norbert Bollow
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 12:03 PM
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society
representation at WSIS+10 in Paris

Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anriette and I have both been alloted 5 minutes to contribute to the 
> High Level panel on Tuesday afternoon (2.30 pm)

Sorry to jump in here with a nitpick, but that panel is on Monday afternoon.

Just to avoid any confusion as much as possible. :-)

Greetings,
Norbert
_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From shailam at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 15:38:53 2013
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:38:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: SV: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation
 at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <1361392733.58244.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

+1
Shaila 


 
The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !
..................... the renaissance of composure !



________________________________
 From: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>; IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:36 AM
Subject: SV: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at WSIS+10 in Paris
 
This has my full support. 

wolfgang

________________________________

Fra: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org på vegne af Norbert Bollow
Sendt: on 20-02-2013 11:19
Til: IGC
Emne: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at WSIS+10 in Paris



Dear all

As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
have done so.

By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
process.

First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
reasonably quick response was expected.

I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
potential nominees and selection criteria.

For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.

I believe that we have a very good end result:


Opening session:
  Grace Githaiga

"High level" session on Monday afternoon:
  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein

Closing:
  Anita Gurumurthy


I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
widely, as per the email message pasted below.

Greetings,
Norbert


--snip------------------------------------------------------------------

Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:

> I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> civil society

Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)

As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.

Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
you're active in.

Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
also taking into account what in your view may have been
underemphasized by other civil society speakers.

Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
processes.

Greetings,
Norbert





____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/d07d9919/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jfcallo at ciencitec.com  Wed Feb 20 15:52:10 2013
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:52:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] Tanta bulla para lo mismo
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLvG6EpRg7GZZnapmhzeUx60nE-LrcUVpw2kMSOHTseNJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
 <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
 <CACAaNxjfpFn9+u6+FRJd24QadnB8Ls+ypOxKXXb6jMmpzt47bA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130220164721.1f27ec47@quill.bollow.ch>
 <20130220171000.23cf9994@quill.bollow.ch>
 <1B0AB517-2111-40E1-8E72-A2ACF8ADF842@gmail.com>
 <20130220184429.64809405@quill.bollow.ch>
 <CAAYFVLvG6EpRg7GZZnapmhzeUx60nE-LrcUVpw2kMSOHTseNJA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130220155210.45234r6tm5lapiey@www.ciencitec.com>

(Spanish)
Don Jose Felix y miembros de esta lista.
Realmente no entiendo lo que ha pretendido en una larga y solitaria  
discusion, para terminar diciendo, queda ahi o estoy de acuerdo. Si  
estoy equivocado en mi humilde apreciacion hagalo saber, pero los  
hispanohablantes no podemos quedar como inconsecuentes.
Con el respeto y disculpas del caso.
(English)
Don Jose Felix and members of this list.
I really do not understand what you have tried in a long and lonely  
discussion, finally saying, is there or I agree. If I am wrong in my  
humble appreciation let us know, but we can not be speaking as  
inconsequential.
With respect and appropriate apologies.


José F. Callo Romero
CEO ciencitec.com





-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 20 15:59:10 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:29:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>

The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  

Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.

--srs (iPad)

On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
> 
> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:
> 
> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
> 
>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
> 
> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
> 
> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
> 
> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:
> 
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
> 
> 
>> 
>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>> >
>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
> 
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
> 
>  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/2f35fe33/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 15:59:34 2013
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:59:34 +0500
Subject: SV: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation
 at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <1361392733.58244.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<1361392733.58244.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtNtT0g8-wBgceDy+tx3JnbEnTaeWLpNu1L394mETea73w@mail.gmail.com>

The choice of speakers has my support especially in light of the lack
of time to compose a NomCom to do so.

Best

Fouad

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:38 AM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:
> +1
> Shaila
>
> The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !
> ..................... the renaissance of composure !
>
> ________________________________
> From: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>; IGC
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:36 AM
> Subject: SV: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
> WSIS+10 in Paris
>
> This has my full support.
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org på vegne af Norbert Bollow
> Sendt: on 20-02-2013 11:19
> Til: IGC
> Emne: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at WSIS+10
> in Paris
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
> As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> have done so.
>
> By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> process.
>
> First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> reasonably quick response was expected.
>
> I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> potential nominees and selection criteria.
>
> For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
>
> I believe that we have a very good end result:
>
>
> Opening session:
>   Grace Githaiga
>
> "High level" session on Monday afternoon:
>   Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein
>
> Closing:
>   Anita Gurumurthy
>
>
> I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> widely, as per the email message pasted below.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
>
>> I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
>> civil society
>
> Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
>
> As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
>
> Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> you're active in.
>
> Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> also taking into account what in your view may have been
> underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
>
> Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> processes.
>
> 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 jfcallo at ciencitec.com  Wed Feb 20 16:08:10 2013
From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:08:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=BFMonopolio=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <CAAYFVLuF+oFFa3fR48EFDS145pJ=6XQseLhAQ7deQgttLfVPAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAYFVLuF+oFFa3fR48EFDS145pJ=6XQseLhAQ7deQgttLfVPAA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130220160810.17058uizv0daghmi@www.ciencitec.com>

(Spanish)
Don Jose Felix:
Por favor los monopolios estan en extincion, disculpe si mal  
interpreto es una propuesta, una sugerencia o una imposicion.
Gracias

(English)
Please monopolies are endangered, sorry if I play is a proposal, a  
suggestion or an imposition.
thanks

José F. Callo Romero
CEO ciencitec.com




-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 17:34:34 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:34:34 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>

In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.

>From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  
> 
> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>>> 
>>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>> 
>> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
>> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
>> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
>> 
>>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>> 
>> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
>> 
>> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>> 
>> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:
>> 
>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
>> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>>> >
>>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>> 
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>> 
>>  
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/4233598e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 17:55:36 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:55:36 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
	<CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
	<CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>
	<9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDdgo9_fLFSCD-WE9zUkexWgVOPnt7m5--23f9pdbsmyg@mail.gmail.com>

"she" was supposed to read as "be"...apologies.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like
> the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that
> Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse
> jurisdictional treatment etc.
>
> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to
> she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour,
> Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the
> frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.
>
> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition
> to a considerable extent.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>
> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet
> Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>
> "*23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)*
> *Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.*
> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of
> holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise
> nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and
> whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed
> by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are
> concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy,
> and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent
> such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market
> oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the
> perceived unbalanced."
>
>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information
> Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's
> Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from
> Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>
> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily
> be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The
> criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
>
> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being
> mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of
> course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are
> widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>
> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the
> Internet and here are just three:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html
> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>
>
>
>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>> >
>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/54f4ff19/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 20 20:14:15 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:44:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net>

I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek.

--srs (iPad)

On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.
> 
> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
>> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  
>> 
>> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>>>> 
>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>> 
>>> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>>> 
>>> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
>>> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
>>> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
>>> 
>>>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>>> 
>>> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
>>> 
>>> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>>> 
>>> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:
>>> 
>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
>>> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>>>> >
>>>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>> 
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/658f08c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 21:41:15 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:41:15 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
 <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhObf6mWzitvtdGb4LN5aUWtnwahzMtmP_F6esYqgpS3A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the
> frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.
>
> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition
> to a considerable extent.
>


agreed, perhaps if we are going to split the list it should be along the
lines of "Governance of the Internet" and "Governance of things people do
on the Internet".

BTW, we had the AGM of the ISOC-DC Chapter this evening. A shining example
of civil society doing Internet Governance 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130220/331aef5d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From tracey at traceynaughton.com  Wed Feb 20 22:22:01 2013
From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:22:01 +1100
Subject: SV: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation
 at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <C9CBC707-EF69-4AF5-8D14-FCA09929E742@traceynaughton.com>

Excellent choices! 

Tracey Naughton

On 21 Feb 2013, at 3:36 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

This has my full support. 

wolfgang

________________________________

Fra: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org på vegne af Norbert Bollow
Sendt: on 20-02-2013 11:19
Til: IGC
Emne: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at WSIS+10 in Paris



Dear all

As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
have done so.

By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
process.

First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
reasonably quick response was expected.

I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
potential nominees and selection criteria.

For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.

I believe that we have a very good end result:


Opening session:
 Grace Githaiga

"High level" session on Monday afternoon:
 Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein

Closing:
 Anita Gurumurthy


I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
widely, as per the email message pasted below.

Greetings,
Norbert


--snip------------------------------------------------------------------

Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:

> I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> civil society

Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)

As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.

Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
you're active in.

Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
also taking into account what in your view may have been
underemphasized by other civil society speakers.

Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
processes.

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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 00:45:33 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:45:33 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com>

It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South.
Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet.






Sent from my iPad

On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.
>> 
>> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  
>>> 
>>> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.
>>> 
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>> 
>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>>>>> 
>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>> 
>>>> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>>>> 
>>>> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
>>>> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
>>>> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
>>>> 
>>>>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>>>> 
>>>> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
>>>> 
>>>> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>>>> 
>>>> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
>>>> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
>>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>> Suva
>>>> Fiji
>>>> 
>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/0d309c64/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Feb 21 00:54:45 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:24:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net>

A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like?

Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.

--srs (iPad)

On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South.
> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
>> I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.
>>> 
>>> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  
>>>> 
>>>> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.
>>>> 
>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>> 
>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
>>>>> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
>>>>> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
>>>>> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
>>>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>>> Suva
>>>>> Fiji
>>>>> 
>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/6af75c1b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 01:34:10 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:34:10 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com> <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com> <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com> <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net> <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com> <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net> <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com> <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com>

On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology.


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the global public interest, more like?
> 
> Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public interest is labelled as left/South.
>> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we hold dear, an open and free Internet.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if that's a criterion that some seek.
>>> 
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>> 
>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.
>>>> 
>>>> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition to a considerable extent.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I somehow missed?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
>>>>>> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
>>>>>> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual property rights holders are concerned about the high number of infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of Piracy Filters.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on software etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP and the Internet and here are just three:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html 
>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
>>>>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>>>>> Suva
>>>>>> Fiji
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/9521a91d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Feb 21 01:55:27 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:25:27 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the
 Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions? | Knowledge Ecology
 International
In-Reply-To: <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTSDBe8JpaP+LbF=LeT3d4TSr7L0fZoRXT9StdVYcU15qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <0D9D6858-058A-4DC6-8FFB-11DE80FEB2C3@gmail.com>
 <CE61EE4D-BA66-4D1B-AB5C-698D7BF9513D@hserus.net>
 <CAJwbTiAETFyYhg60juRTgWK6y0Zy=w3LR8ygRvXZLWvqPQPKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <D28C55A0-F6C2-47F3-A4E5-661FEA3EBD83@hserus.net>
 <9E0FEECB-601E-4B8C-AC48-F4CB854E9319@gmail.com>
 <F28ECF40-60FF-4A68-AA8E-A534EBC15668@hserus.net>
 <9B0D296A-2A6D-4433-A35F-C6A9725047C4@gmail.com>
 <B689EE8A-D1FD-48DF-8E5A-08084E9D8536@hserus.net>
 <7A52667B-F239-4D3D-8A61-2E3D99D4ACEE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13cfb88f7db.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

A big difference between the two. Ideology is driven by a relatively 
blind belief system. Philosophy takes more facts into account, even if 
they conflict with ideology.

--srs (htc one x)



On 21 February 2013 12:04:10 PM Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the contrary, policy is driven by philosophy or ideology.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
> > A perception of what different groups or individuals feel is the 
> global public interest, more like?
> >
> > Ideology and policy, especially on the Internet, are a very bad mix. 
> And I doubt you will get consensus on what constitutes global public interest.
> >
> > --srs (iPad)
> >
> > On 21-Feb-2013, at 11:15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It is interesting when advocacy in relation to global public 
> interest is labelled as left/South.
> >> Civil society is seen as a watchdog and where it is told to stop 
> speaking or expressing its views because they are "left" then there is 
> a danger of being innoculated from subtle threats that affect what we 
> hold dear, an open and free Internet.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On Feb 21, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I dont dispute that.  My sole point is that there's little or no 
> connection from these to internet governance, and there are plenty of 
> other fora where the rest of it gets extensively discussed - quite a 
> few exclusively from a "south" / "left" etc perspective as well, if 
> that's a criterion that some seek.
> >>>
> >>> --srs (iPad)
> >>>
> >>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 4:04, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In essence, we live in a vast interconnected world and with 
> something like the Internet, there are a plethora of issues that stem 
> from the way that Internet is structured and the various regulatory 
> mechanisms, diverse jurisdictional treatment etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> From a global public interest, it is in the interest of civil 
> society to she informed of how various shifts in policies, laws, market 
> behaviour, Internet architecture can affect the ordinary user.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> >>>>
> >>>> On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The "application to cyberspace" part seems to be missing in that 
> the frameworks being discussed are not specific to online copyright theft.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov 
> definition to a considerable extent.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --srs (iPad)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 21-Feb-2013, at 0:42, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" 
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi, is there an internet governance angle to this that I 
> somehow missed?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --srs (iPad)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Th WGIG 2005 Report identified Intellectual Property as an 
> Internet Governance thematic area. See page 7:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "23. Intellectual property rights (IPR)
> >>>>>> Application of intellectual property rights to cyberspace.
> >>>>>> • While there is agreement on the need for balance between the 
> rights of holders and the rights of users, there are different views on 
> the precise nature of the balance that will be most beneficial to all 
> stakeholders, and whether the current IPR system is adequate to address 
> the new issues posed by cyberspace. On the one hand, intellectual 
> property rights holders are concerned about the high number of 
> infringements, such as digital piracy, and the technologies developed 
> to circumvent protective measures to prevent such infringements; on the 
> other hand, users are concerned about market oligopolies, the 
> impediments to access and use of digital content and the perceived unbalanced."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Intellectual Property touches virtually every layer of the 
> Information Infrastructure and layer of Internet Architecture, consider 
> Verisign's Patent Application for Domain Name Transfers and other 
> issues stemming from Digital Rights Management Systems and the use of 
> Piracy Filters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For human rights advocates, the use of piracy filters can just 
> as easily be used to filter content arbitrarily and where do you draw 
> the line. The criminalization of things like breaking digital locks on 
> software etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The threats with the TPP is that there is a massive transition 
> from being mere Traffic providers to policing the internet. The Berne 
> Convention of course is one of the long standing international legal 
> instruments that are widely accepted globally so by extension it is relevant.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are many links that you can go to see the link between IP 
> and the Internet and here are just three:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/gov/issues/ip_rights.html
> >>>>>> https://www.eff.org/search/site/Trans%20Pacific%20partnership
> >>>>>> 
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121011_perspective_on_verisign_patent_application_on_domain_transfers/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 20-Feb-2013, at 18:57, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> > Using a treaty for the blind to push 3 strikes..
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> >> http://keionline.org/node/1655
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> >>>>>> P.O. Box 17862
> >>>>>> Suva
> >>>>>> Fiji
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> >>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828
> >>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/ffe21709/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb 21 04:39:38 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:39:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <0e9501ce0fa4$342ab3b0$9c801b10$@gmail.com>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>
	<CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com>
	<0e9501ce0fa4$342ab3b0$9c801b10$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130221103938.67ed5345@quill.bollow.ch>

Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Our task is to contribute to an "exchange on major developments since
> 2003/2005, new challenges as well as possible post-2015 arrangements"
> i.e. the past present and future of the Information Society etc. (in
> 5 minutes!).
> 
> Bullet points folks?

I would suggest to do everything possible to revive the vision for a
"people-oriented information society" of the WSIS-CS declarations.

I think that especially the points on Free Software in the WSIS-CS 2003
declaration are important to emphasize, both because these points are
important in their own right and because they illustrate that there
are important choices that can be made and need to be made.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 09:50:39 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:50:39 -0800
Subject: [governance] RE: WSIS Forum 2013: Thematic/ Country Workshops
In-Reply-To: <F408F1478D3BD24F836D18FE629928213AA94C75@TUCHM01.TUECSP.UNICC.ORG>
References: <F408F1478D3BD24F836D18FE629928213AA94C75@TUCHM01.TUECSP.UNICC.ORG>
Message-ID: <124301ce1042$de390d90$9aab28b0$@gmail.com>

Perhaps a useful indicator of the awareness/interest in the WSIS process.

 

M

 

From: Sah, Gitanjali [mailto:gitanjali.sah at itu.int] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:23 AM
To: Sah, Gitanjali
Subject: WSIS Forum 2013: Thematic/ Country Workshops

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Thank you for submitting your official submissions to the WSIS Forum 2013
Open Consultation Process. We are happy to inform you that we have received
more than 150 Submissions. Please find below some interesting statistics of
the open consultation process: 

 

 

In the next few weeks we will contacting all of you for the requests
submitted by you/ your organization/ your country. As last year, in order to
avoid  repetition of workshops during the Forum we will try to group
together all the requests with similar areas of interest and put the focal
points in touch with each other.

 

We look forward to working with you and welcoming you at the Forum. Please
make sure that you have registered to the forum
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/register.html , booked
your accommodation and completed your profile once registered at the
imeetyouatWSIS social networking platform. 

 

Best regards,

Gitanjali

 

 

Gitanjali SAH 
Policy Analyst, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland

Mob: +41 79 808 6076

Tel.: + 41 22 730 6240
Fax.: + 41 22 730 6453
E-mail: Gitanjali.Sah at itu.int
Web:   http://www.itu.int <http://www.itu.int/>  
           http://www.wsis.org 
           http://www.wsis.org/ <http://www.wsis.org/forum> forum 
           http://www.wsis.org <http://www.wsis.org/> /stocktaking  

 <http://www.itu.int/net/about/vision.aspx> Description: Description:
Description: cid:image001.gif at 01CB567C.95D44100        

 

 <http://www.wsis.org/forum> Description: Description: Description: imeet

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/454ac2da/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 22590 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/454ac2da/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 20277 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/454ac2da/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 10550 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/454ac2da/attachment-0002.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3117 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/454ac2da/attachment-0003.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Thu Feb 21 09:59:26 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 23:59:26 +0900
Subject: SV: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation
 at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <C9CBC707-EF69-4AF5-8D14-FCA09929E742@traceynaughton.com>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <C9CBC707-EF69-4AF5-8D14-FCA09929E742@traceynaughton.com>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKhy27Df93TK84j=M=fZto4yCgmXQHfGMK-zz6uMPvfP7A@mail.gmail.com>

+1

izumi


2013/2/21 Tracey Naughton <tracey at traceynaughton.com>

> Excellent choices!
>
> Tracey Naughton
>
> On 21 Feb 2013, at 3:36 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>
> This has my full support.
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org på vegne af Norbert Bollow
> Sendt: on 20-02-2013 11:19
> Til: IGC
> Emne: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
> WSIS+10 in Paris
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
> As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> have done so.
>
> By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> process.
>
> First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> reasonably quick response was expected.
>
> I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> potential nominees and selection criteria.
>
> For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
>
> I believe that we have a very good end result:
>
>
> Opening session:
>  Grace Githaiga
>
> "High level" session on Monday afternoon:
>  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein
>
> Closing:
>  Anita Gurumurthy
>
>
> I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> widely, as per the email message pasted below.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
>
> > I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> > civil society
>
> Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
>
> As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
>
> Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> you're active in.
>
> Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> also taking into account what in your view may have been
> underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
>
> Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> processes.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/a7679ed1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Feb 21 10:14:31 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 00:14:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <0e9501ce0fa4$342ab3b0$9c801b10$@gmail.com>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>
	<BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>
	<CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com>
	<0e9501ce0fa4$342ab3b0$9c801b10$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFabd1+5G=oawFMxEfoqiBuRm7FC4Hq5YnC8Le=EAgK6O-3UTA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:55 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anriette and I have both been alloted 5 minutes to contribute to the High
> Level panel on Tuesday afternoon (2.30 pm) (I'm not yet sure of the format
> but it sounds as though we are contributing from a floor mike…
>
>
>
> Our task is to contribute to an "exchange on major developments since
> 2003/2005, new challenges as well as possible post-2015 arrangements" i.e.
> the past present and future of the Information Society etc. (in 5 minutes!).
>

"multi-stakeholder" as a new development from WSIS 2005, or somewhat
inspired by WSIS (or perhaps WSIS just a bit ahead of the curve.)
"multi-stakeholder" as a challenge now
and think we can be sure it'll be increasingly important post-2015

Adam

>
>
> Bullet points folks?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F.
> Hackshaw @ Google
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:01 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Grace Githaiga
> Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
> WSIS+10 in Paris
>
>
>
> Hi Grace:
>
>
>
> Thanks for reaching out.
>
>
>
> I would certainly appreciate if you could spare 45 secs or thereabouts to
> raise awareness, by mention, of the challenges facing Small Island
> Developing States.
>
>
>
> For guidance, there is some excellent information emanating from the
> recently held IGF-12 Workshop on a similar topic at
> http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no81-internet-governance-and-sustainable-development-case-small-island-developing-states
> as well as at
> http://www.commonwealthigf.org/blog/internet-governance-challenges-in-small-island-developing-states-raising-the-volume-of-our-voices/
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> Rgds,
>
>
>
> Tracy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear All
>
>
>
> As Nobert informed members, I will be the CS speaker during the opening
> ceremony. I have been allotted five minutes and would like to request
> members on these lists to let me know if there are issues you would like me
> to raise during the opening ceremony.  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael
> Gurstein will be speakers during the  "High level" session on Monday
> afternoon, while Anita Gurumurthy will speak during the closing.
>
>
>
> My bit is only for the opening and would like to feel that I be highlighting
> your concerns.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to hearing from you.
>
> Rgds
>
> Grace
>
>
>
>> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:19:28 +0100
>> From: nb at bollow.ch
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
>> WSIS+10 in Paris
>
>
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
>> Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
>> Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
>> sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
>> convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
>> have done so.
>>
>> By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
>> nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
>> and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
>> up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
>> process.
>>
>> First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
>> recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
>> reasonably quick response was expected.
>>
>> I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
>> in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
>> potential nominees and selection criteria.
>>
>> For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
>> where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
>> for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
>>
>> I believe that we have a very good end result:
>>
>>
>> Opening session:
>> Grace Githaiga
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
>> widely, as per the email message pasted below.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
>> > civil society
>>
>> Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
>> representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
>>
>> As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
>> and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
>> represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
>> to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
>>
>> Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
>> encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
>> make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
>> Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
>> you're active in.
>>
>> Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
>> civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
>> and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
>> points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
>> emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
>> also taking into account what in your view may have been
>> underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
>>
>> Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
>> perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
>> draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
>> overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
>> processes.
>>
>> 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  Thu Feb 21 10:20:56 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:20:56 -0800
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society
 representation at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <5125FC6A.7030301@allonbar.com>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch> <BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl> <CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com> <0e9501ce0fa4$342ab3b0$9c801b10$@gmail.com> <5125FC6A.7030301@allonbar.com>
Message-ID: <12a101ce1047$1f6b4810$5e41d830$@gmail.com>

Hi Allon,

 

That is a really terrific and thought provoking list, thanks.

 

I'll try to point to some of those in my address.

 

Best,

 

M

 

From: Allon Bar [mailto:allon at allonbar.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:52 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google'; 'Grace
Githaiga'; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society
representation at WSIS+10 in Paris

 

Some developments over the past years that I think stand out, of which it
might be worthwhile to mention a few:

- enormous growth in number of Internet users, in absolute figures, in
percentage per country, in global reach. At the same time most people in the
world still can't access the Internet at all (for reasons of infrastructure,
economics, disabilities, politics, etc.), or are getting a subpar experience
(censorship, bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)
- mobile. 
- (partly related) Internet and information through new technologies now
being accessed pretty much non-stop, and permeating deeper and deeper into
our lives.
- social media and more. People increasingly reaching beyond passive
consumption of information to actively create and share information.
- much wider involvement of citizens in debates on information society
issues. Growing awareness of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the
Internet and on our lives in general.
- in some ways decreasing distance between governments and their citizens
(open data initiatives, online participation by politicians, etc.).
- risk of marginalization of those who are less able to adapt to new
technologies in their current form.
- human rights becoming a prism through which Internet-related policies are
being assessed. 
- the dominance of intellectual property rights in policy calculations, with
the protection of intellectual property rights being given, or proposed to
be given, large powers impacting people's enjoyment of the Internet.
- increasing censorship: more countries impeding on expression online, under
banners of maintaining stability, protecting public morale, countering
extremism, protecting national security, protecting the rights of others
(intellectual property rights, defamation, women & children (Iceland),
etc.).
- some risks here and there of a fragmented world wide web, what you get to
see in one place is not necessarily the same you get to see elsewhere.
- probably increasing surveillance of online activities by governments and
other actors. Continued disparity between knowledge about our privacy and
the privacy that we actually enjoy.
- businesses in most places continuing to play a crucial role in what people
can see and do online. Diversification and exponential growth of online
services, at the same time as for many people a few companies are
facilitating a large part of their daily online experience (Google,
Facebook). 
- companies turned to by governments to facilitate limitations to
expression, and to provide data about their users. Increasing attention to
how business practices affect our privacy and expression.
- people becoming increasingly vulnerable to cyber crime and all sorts of
intrusions, partly because our digital security practice hasn't grown along
the same lines as the sophistication of attackers has.
- with new media representing a new force, the desire of status quo powers
to exercise control over them grows, as is reflected in local, national and
international governance debates.
- continued incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which people use,
adapt and invent technology. The human mind is free.

Allon

On 2/20/13 8:55 PM, michael gurstein wrote:

Anriette and I have both been alloted 5 minutes to contribute to the High
Level panel on Tuesday afternoon (2.30 pm) (I'm not yet sure of the format
but it sounds as though we are contributing from a floor mike.

 

Our task is to contribute to an "exchange on major developments since
2003/2005, new challenges as well as possible post-2015 arrangements" i.e.
the past present and future of the Information Society etc. (in 5 minutes!).

 

Bullet points folks?

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F.
Hackshaw @ Google
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:01 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Grace Githaiga
Cc: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
WSIS+10 in Paris

 

Hi Grace:

 

Thanks for reaching out.

 

I would certainly appreciate if you could spare 45 secs or thereabouts to
raise awareness, by mention, of the challenges facing Small Island
Developing States.

 

For guidance, there is some excellent information emanating from the
recently held IGF-12 Workshop on a similar topic at
http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no81-internet-governance-and-sustainabl
e-development-case-small-island-developing-states as well as at
http://www.commonwealthigf.org/blog/internet-governance-challenges-in-small-
island-developing-states-raising-the-volume-of-our-voices/

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Rgds,

 

Tracy

 

 

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>
wrote:

Dear All

 

As Nobert informed members, I will be the CS speaker during the opening
ceremony. I have been allotted five minutes and would like to request
members on these lists to let me know if there are issues you would like me
to raise during the opening ceremony.  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael
Gurstein will be speakers during the  "High level" session on Monday
afternoon, while Anita Gurumurthy will speak during the closing. 

 

My bit is only for the opening and would like to feel that I be highlighting
your concerns. 

 

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Rgds

Grace

 

> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:19:28 +0100
> From: nb at bollow.ch
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
WSIS+10 in Paris


> 
> Dear all
> 
> As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> have done so.
> 
> By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> process.
> 
> First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> reasonably quick response was expected.
> 
> I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> potential nominees and selection criteria.
> 
> For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
> 
> I believe that we have a very good end result:
> 
> 
> Opening session:
> Grace Githaiga
> 
> 
> 
> 

> I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> widely, as per the email message pasted below.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
> 
> > I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> > civil society
> 
> Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
> 
> As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
> 
> Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> you're active in.
> 
> Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> also taking into account what in your view may have been
> underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
> 
> Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> processes.
> 
> 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

 





_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/63530518/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 10:46:21 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:46:21 -0800
Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] WSIS Forum 2013: Thematic/ Country
 Workshops
In-Reply-To: <CANACerE0OjqvjyY6F6DiaadBbbchSna8=acDHRPbJWGCuxpXTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F408F1478D3BD24F836D18FE629928213AA94C75@TUCHM01.TUECSP.UNICC.ORG> <124301ce1042$de390d90$9aab28b0$@gmail.com> <CANACerE0OjqvjyY6F6DiaadBbbchSna8=acDHRPbJWGCuxpXTg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <12a601ce104a$a5f76000$f1e62000$@gmail.com>

Whoops the (interesting) charts which were embedded in the original email don't seem to have made it through…

 

I'll try again just below but if that doesn't work I'm out of options, sorry…

 

cid:image001.png at 01CE0FFF.37226080 cid:image002.png at 01CE0FFF.37226080

 

M

 

From: Rayna [mailto:rayna.st at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:58 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; IRP
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] WSIS Forum 2013: Thematic/ Country Workshops

 

Thanks, Michael, but is it me or there is nothing attached? :)

2013/2/21 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>

Perhaps a useful indicator of the awareness/interest in the WSIS process.

 

M

 

From: Sah, Gitanjali [mailto:gitanjali.sah at itu.int] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:23 AM
To: Sah, Gitanjali
Subject: WSIS Forum 2013: Thematic/ Country Workshops

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Thank you for submitting your official submissions to the WSIS Forum 2013 Open Consultation Process. We are happy to inform you that we have received more than 150 Submissions. Please find below some interesting statistics of the open consultation process: 

 

 

In the next few weeks we will contacting all of you for the requests submitted by you/ your organization/ your country. As last year, in order to avoid  repetition of workshops during the Forum we will try to group together all the requests with similar areas of interest and put the focal points in touch with each other.

 

We look forward to working with you and welcoming you at the Forum. Please make sure that you have registered to the forum http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/register.html , booked your accommodation and completed your profile once registered at the imeetyouatWSIS social networking platform. 

 

Best regards,

Gitanjali

 

 

Gitanjali SAH 
Policy Analyst, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland

Mob: +41 79 808 6076 <tel:%2B41%2079%20808%206076> 

Tel.: + 41 22 730 6240 <tel:%2B%2041%2022%20730%206240> 
Fax.: + 41 22 730 6453 <tel:%2B%2041%2022%20730%206453> 
E-mail: Gitanjali.Sah at itu.int
Web:   http://www.itu.int <http://www.itu.int/>  
           http://www.wsis.org 
           http://www.wsis.org/ <http://www.wsis.org/forum> forum 
           http://www.wsis.org <http://www.wsis.org/> /stocktaking  

 <http://www.itu.int/net/about/vision.aspx>         

 <http://www.itu.int/net/about/vision.aspx>  

 <http://www.itu.int/net/about/vision.aspx> 


 

 <http://www.itu.int/net/about/vision.aspx> 
_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp

 <http://www.itu.int/net/about/vision.aspx> 


-- 
"Change l'ordre du monde plutôt que tes désirs."

http://de.linkedin.com/in/raynas  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/b8d705ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 22590 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/b8d705ea/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 20277 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/b8d705ea/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 21 10:46:21 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:46:21 -0800
Subject: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
 WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <20130221103938.67ed5345@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>	<BAY151-W27BA479313DE8C82DADAAFB4F60@phx.gbl>	<CAC0JwGNCRLt3abQRTJUbGKQcN-RAg0p6o4vDSE+6Fd1p9gv+og@mail.gmail.com>	<0e9501ce0fa4$342ab3b0$9c801b10$@gmail.com> <20130221103938.67ed5345@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <12d601ce104a$aad08660$00719320$@gmail.com>

Thanks Norbert and a good suggestion...  Anriette mentioned somewhere that
she was going to be covering the WSIS 2003 issues so perhaps she might
mention it there.  If not, then it is something that I could point to.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:40 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at
WSIS+10 in Paris

Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Our task is to contribute to an "exchange on major developments since 
> 2003/2005, new challenges as well as possible post-2015 arrangements"
> i.e. the past present and future of the Information Society etc. (in
> 5 minutes!).
> 
> Bullet points folks?

I would suggest to do everything possible to revive the vision for a
"people-oriented information society" of the WSIS-CS declarations.

I think that especially the points on Free Software in the WSIS-CS 2003
declaration are important to emphasize, both because these points are
important in their own right and because they illustrate that there are
important choices that can be made and need to be made.

Greetings,
Norbert


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at acm.org  Thu Feb 21 13:38:38 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:38:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 event on Enhanced Cooperation
Message-ID: <908B78BA-441B-41E0-8BC2-9BF86C5DDAB4@acm.org>

aka EC


https://www.apc.org/en/news/enhanced-cooperation-wsis10-review-event

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pouzin at well.com  Thu Feb 21 13:48:10 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:48:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] 2013 outlook from RIPE
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxgBdQqDsTWNzEWqHr0MYmPSF2w-MsmSX7frpmRkZ24_Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACAaNxgBdQqDsTWNzEWqHr0MYmPSF2w-MsmSX7frpmRkZ24_Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYqJUbLsXUoyj1c3deSDi6r4y_98ODuToi+D1vj3wMmHJw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:39 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/internet-governance-and-the-ripe-ncc-the-year-ahead

- - -

Interesting to know about RIPE policies.

Who pays for the infrastructure ? Something is missing.

Who pays for root service ? Taxpayers in all countries.
Since most rootops are government funded institutions.

Who makes money out of root service ?
Mostly ICANN, and Verisign, inter alia. And no tax.

Louis
- - -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/1c0a94b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 12:48:04 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:48:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] Tangential / 90,000 Urge Congress NOT to Co-Sponsor
 CISPA (Swartz - PATRIOT Act for the Internet) + Conflation of Wikileaks by
 USG
Message-ID: <51265DD4.7090007@gmail.com>

*FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*
February 21, 2013
12:06 PM

	

*CONTACT: Demand Progress <http://www.demandprogress.org>*

*Email:* info at demandprogress.org <mailto:info at demandprogress.org>


    90,000 Urge Congress NOT to Co-Sponsor CISPA


      Demand Progress Calls Internet Snooping Bill "the Patriot Act for
      the Internet"

WASHINGTON - February 21 - In just 48 hours, more than 90,000 Demand 
Progress members have expressed their opposition to the Cyber 
Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) which was introduced 
last week by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD).

Over the course of 2012, more than 200,000 Demand Progress members 
emailed or called Congress in opposition to a previous incarnation of 
CISPA and it's Senate counterpart.

Internet users can email their members of Congress by clicking here:
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/cispa_is_back/

CISPA would encourage companies to gather information about their 
customers and users and share that information with the government 
without a warrant. It would preempt all existing online privacy laws and 
regulations.

Last year, Demand Progress' Aaron Swartz dubbed the legislation the 
'Patriot Act of the Internet.'

"An ever more politicized Internet public is making its voice heard yet 
again: We've grown tired of the incessant fear-mongering by politicians, 
and refuse to accept such infringement of our online privacy rights," 
said Aaron Swartz, last year. "We urge members of Congress to refuse to 
cosponsor CISPA, and to vote against it when the time comes."

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/02/21-0

*Demand Progress* works to win progressive policy changes for ordinary 
people through organizing, lobbying, and elections in the United States.

Published on Thursday, February 21, 2013 by Common Dreams 
<http://www.commondreams.org>


    US Government Conflates Media Outlet Wikileaks with Cyber-Criminals
    and 'Hacktivists'


      New Obama administration strategy says WikiLeaks might perform
      "economic espionage against US companies"

- Jon Queally, staff writer

In what transparency advocates and defenders of free speech see as a 
troubling development, the Obama administration on Wednesday released a 
multi-agency "strategy"---designed to combat cyber-crime and foreign 
espionage---which makes unsettling comparisons to the work of the 
government and corporate whistleblower media outlet Wikileaks to 
criminal hacking syndicates.

Defenders of Wikileaks call the White House description of the media 
outlet as a group of 'hacktivists' as blatantly false. "Disgruntled 
insiders [may leak] information about corporate trade secrets or 
critical U.S. technology to 'hacktivist' groups like WikiLeaks," the 
White House document warns, belying the well established fact that 
Wikileaks does not operate as a 'hacking' site but as a clearing house 
for leaked documents that acts as a media outlet more than anything else.

According to Wikileaks' own website, it describes itself as is "a 
not-for-profit media organization."

Its goal, the group states, "is to bring important news and information 
to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for 
sources to leak information to our journalists. One of our most 
important activities is to publish original source material alongside 
our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the 
truth."

But, as /CNET/'s Declan McCullagh points out 
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57570384-38/white-house-warns-of-dangers-posed-by-wikileaks-lulzsec-other-hacktivists/>, 
Wikileak's inclusion in the new strategy document (PDF 
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/admin_strategy_on_mitigating_the_theft_of_u.s._trade_secrets.pdf>)---one 
expected to be focused on "state-sponsored intrusions"---had not been 
anticipated.

"Regardless of the US government's prejudice, [Wikileaks] is a media 
organization and a publisher, not some "hacktivist" collective. It has a 
right to publish just like other news outlets, including those in the 
United States that are sometimes incredibly subservient to corporate 
interests or the US government." -- Kevin Gosztgola, FireDogLake

"Especially," writes McCullagh, "in the wake of disclosures this week 
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57570187-38/chinas-cyberwar-intrusions-are-the-new-normal-faq/> 
about the Chinese military's involvement in penetrating the networks of 
U.S.-headquartered companies."

McCullagh says that by mentioning Wikileaks---whose founder Julian 
Assange remains in holed up the Ecuadorean Embassy in London due to his 
fears that the US would like to prosecute him for releasing embarrassing 
US government and military documents---the Justice Department "signals 
that the government's interest 
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20025523-281.html> in WikiLeaks has 
not abated."

McCullagh notes that vice president Joe Biden has called 
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden> 
Assange a "high-tech terrorist," and that "a grand jury has been 
empaneled 
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57546782-38/bradley-manning-offers-partial-guilty-plea-to-military-court/> 
in Alexandria, Va., as part of a criminal investigation of the group."

And Kevin Gosztgola, writing at /FireDogLake/, adds 
<http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/02/20/white-house-strategy-to-protect-trade-secrets-names-wikileaks-criminalizes-hacktivists/>:

    The strategy makes clear that the White House does not consider
    WikiLeaks a media organization. It characterizes it as a
    "self-styling whistleblowing" organization, but the word
    "self-styled" indicates they are not a "whistleblowing organization"
    to White House officials.

    The organization is listed under a description of hacktivists and
    even described as an example of a "hacktivist" organization. This is
    blatantly false and malicious because staffers of WikiLeaks are not
    known to have hacked into any businesses or organizations to obtain
    information. They are not even known to have solicited information
    from insiders. All information released has been the result of
    submissions from sources they are unable to identify because their
    submission system was setup to protect the identity of sources or
    the information has been personally handed over by a whistleblower,
    who publicly wanted to be identified as the source [as in the case
    of Elmer].

    Regardless of the US government's prejudice, it is a media
    organization and a publisher, not some "hacktivist" collective.
    WikiLeaks has a right to publish just like other news outlets,
    including those in the United States that are sometimes incredibly
    subservient to corporate interests or the US government.

    By including WikiLeaks in this strategy, the Obama administration is
    seeking to characterize WikiLeaks as an organization that poses a
    potential threat to the US economy. Such a characterization is
    advantageous to military prosecutors in the court martial of Pfc.
    Bradley Manning, who allegedly provided classified information to
    WikiLeaks. Manning is charged with "aiding the enemy" by indirectly
    providing intelligence to al Qaeda through WikiLeaks. His defense
    maintains WikiLeaks is a media organization that should enjoy the
    same legal protections the /New York Times /or /Washington Post
    /would enjoy, but if the White House is going to cast WikiLeaks as
    an actor that might engage in economic espionage, it is much easier
    to convince the judge that WikiLeaks is some type of info-terrorist
    organization and that Manning should have known the information
    could be used to injure the United States.

    There is no reasonable justification for including "hacktivists" in
    this strategy other than the fact that the White House intends to
    further support the targeting of "hacktivists" by law enforcement
    and intelligence agencies. "Hacktivists" do not pose any threat to
    trade secrets and never will. If they truly are political or social
    "hacktivists" and not thiefs, they will not take anything from any
    businesses or organizations and they will not destroy any of the
    business or organization's website by accessing it through the internet.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/0dbc370f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: demandprogress.org_-_2011-05-24_-_12h-44m-52s.png
Type: image/png
Size: 47178 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/0dbc370f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 265902-wikileaks_sm.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16330 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/0dbc370f/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From drc at virtualized.org  Thu Feb 21 14:33:19 2013
From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:33:19 -0800
Subject: [governance] 2013 outlook from RIPE
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYqJUbLsXUoyj1c3deSDi6r4y_98ODuToi+D1vj3wMmHJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACAaNxgBdQqDsTWNzEWqHr0MYmPSF2w-MsmSX7frpmRkZ24_Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYqJUbLsXUoyj1c3deSDi6r4y_98ODuToi+D1vj3wMmHJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2B314B0B-05FD-4064-BCFA-9B6D11954533@virtualized.org>

Louis,

On Feb 21, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> Who pays for root service ? Taxpayers in all countries.

Not really.

> Since most rootops are government funded institutions.

No they are not.  Of the root server operators, only D (UMD), E (NASA), G and H (US DoD) are run by government funded institutions. Other root server operators probably receive money from government entities for services unrelated to root service (e.g., I suspect state and federal governmental entities buy Internet service from Cogent, WIDE and USC-ISI receive research grants from the Japanese and US governments respectively for all sorts of things, ISC has received government grants for software development, etc), but that is a bit different.

> Who makes money out of root service ?

It's infrastructure.  Who makes money out of the existence of roads?

> Mostly ICANN, and Verisign, inter alia. And no tax.

As far as I am aware, root service is a cost center for all of the root server operators (I believe one or two rootops charge for at least some of the instances of their root servers, but I do not believe any make a profit directly from root service).  It can be argued that ICANN and Verisign make money out of the DNS and thus, indirectly, through root service, but saying Cogent, ISC, Netnod, RIPE-NCC, WIDE, NASA, DoD, UMD and USC-ISI make money out of root service is specious at best.

But I'm sure you already know this.

Regards,
-drc


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From apisan at unam.mx  Thu Feb 21 14:47:37 2013
From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 19:47:37 +0000
Subject: [governance] 2013 outlook from RIPE
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYqJUbLsXUoyj1c3deSDi6r4y_98ODuToi+D1vj3wMmHJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACAaNxgBdQqDsTWNzEWqHr0MYmPSF2w-MsmSX7frpmRkZ24_Gw@mail.gmail.com>,<CA+EjHYqJUbLsXUoyj1c3deSDi6r4y_98ODuToi+D1vj3wMmHJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BAD611@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>

Hi,

"root service" - if understood as maintaining a copy of the DNS root zone file, keeping it available for those attempts at name resolution that do hit the DNS, mostly due to misconfigured networks, and, for some root-zone operators, propagating and maintaining the files in numerous anycast servers - is a cost center for all who do it.

It is not different when you go one layer out, to ccTLDs for example. Louis like none other of us is well positioned to ask AFNIC (.fr manager) why they invest in Anycast, as per the news in http://www.afnic.fr/en/about-afnic/news/general-news/2778/show/afnic-deploys-its-own-anycast-cloud-1.html

For ICANN it is a cost center and the function is performed for acquiring direct experience and metrics, as well as enabling others through anycasts. It is a cost center and challenged by some in the community for that reason. Couldn't be clearer.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico



+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________
Desde: pouzin at gmail.com [pouzin at gmail.com] en nombre de Louis Pouzin (well) [pouzin at well.com]
Enviado el: jueves, 21 de febrero de 2013 12:48
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Asunto: [governance] 2013 outlook from RIPE

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:39 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com<mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com>> wrote:
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/internet-governance-and-the-ripe-ncc-the-year-ahead

- - -

Interesting to know about RIPE policies.

Who pays for the infrastructure ? Something is missing.

Who pays for root service ? Taxpayers in all countries.
Since most rootops are government funded institutions.

Who makes money out of root service ?
Mostly ICANN, and Verisign, inter alia. And no tax.

Louis
- - -

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/552a9cf9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Feb 21 14:57:58 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:57:58 +0200
Subject: [governance] Call for nominations: CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <51267C46.9010609@apc.org>

Dear colleagues

*Call for nominees from civil society to join the CSTD Working Group on
Enhanced Cooperation*

I have been asked by Mr. Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chairperson of the
Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to act as
the focal point for gathering nominations for the 5 civil society
positions on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I realise
that the IGC Nomcom has already started the process of gathering
nominations and will definitely include the names they propose in the
pool I compile along with an explanation of how they were selected.

Please pass this invitation around to other civil society organisations
or networks you work with.

*Background*

The formation of such a working group (WG) was first discussed at the
15th session of the CSTD in May 2012. The request to the Chairperson to
convene the group was confirmed in resolution 67/195 of the 67th session
of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/195

The task of the WG will bes to examine the "mandate of the World Summit
on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained
in the Tunis Agenda, through seeking, compiling and reviewing inputs
from all Member States and all other stakeholders, and to make
recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate". The working
group has to report to the Commission at its 17th session in 2014 as an
input to the overall review of the outcomes of the WSIS. I am not in a
position to say how many times the WG will meet, but assume it is likely
to meet at least twice before submitting its report in May 2014.

*Role of the civil society focal point*

The role of the focal point for civil society is to assist the CSTD
Chair in reaching out to interested parties among civil society who
would like to be considered for participation in the group. The Chair of
the CSTD will decide on and announce the final composition of the
Working Group.

*Composition of the WG*

The WG will be made up of representatives from 22 Member States (four
per regional group plus the two that have hosted the World Summit on the
Information Society) and as invitees, five representatives each from (a)
the private sector, (b) civil society, (c) the technical and academic
communities and (d) intergovernmental and international organizations.

*Process for nominations*

If you would like to nominate yourself, or another individual, please
send an email to me (anriette at apc.org) copying Emilar Vushe
(emilar at apc.org).

Please include:

1. Your name, email and contact number
2. The civil  society entities (network or organisations) that you are
affiliated to
3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your
job title)
3. Your country of residence
4. Your nationality and your gender

Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD
chair in making the final selection:

5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
policy processes that involve cooperation between governments, and also
between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups? Note that
people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
a lot to contribute.

6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?

7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
and participate in these meetings and in WG activity? Meetings will mostly be in Geneva.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I will try to answer them
to the best of my ability.

Sincerely

Anriette Esterhuysen

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 15:03:21 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:03:21 -0500
Subject: [governance] 2013 outlook from RIPE
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYqJUbLsXUoyj1c3deSDi6r4y_98ODuToi+D1vj3wMmHJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACAaNxgBdQqDsTWNzEWqHr0MYmPSF2w-MsmSX7frpmRkZ24_Gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+EjHYqJUbLsXUoyj1c3deSDi6r4y_98ODuToi+D1vj3wMmHJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhGJAPQjaseoP9H=K=U=E0q8POMONHhNHka2fEHax4Sfw@mail.gmail.com>

In addition to what drc and AP have said:

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:39 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/internet-governance-and-the-ripe-ncc-the-year-ahead
>
> - - -
>
> Interesting to know about RIPE policies.
>

These aren't RIPE policies, the link above describes the RIPE NCC's outlook
on IG for the year ahead.

There is a diff between RIPE and RIPE NCC.

<snip>


Mostly ICANN, and Verisign, inter alia. And no tax.


of course taxes are paid.  In addition to the sales tax/VAT paid on gear,
each of the root-ops has to have a crew of engineers to keep their servers
running, and these orgs pay taxes on their salaries, etc.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/a82709af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Feb 21 15:27:49 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:27:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Preparing for the IGF Open Consultation
In-Reply-To: <20130220145304.1f8a21c3@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20130220145304.1f8a21c3@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <51268345.50907@apc.org>

Dear all

Attached is the APC assessment of the 2012 IGF and recommendations for 
the 2013 IGF.

We support the IRP coalition's proposals for a main themefocused on 
'internet governance principles'.

Anriette


On 20/02/2013 15:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
>
> Dear all
>
> In regard to the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Open
> Consultation on Feb 28 in Paris:
>
> I will be there and available to represent the IGC. However I will be
> able to this only effectively to the extent that I get informed in
> advance about the viewpoints that we have in the Caucus.
>
> Of course, for the points on which we have reached consensus during
> preparation of our written contribution, that consensus will also guide
> me in everything that I will say on those points.
>
> But there may be a need to react to proposals of other stakeholder
> groups, etc, and hence there is IMO a need for additional preparation.
>
> As far as I can see, the planned synthesis is not available yet.
>
> However all the written contributions from various stakeholder
> organizations are available at
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf .
>
> Please post any comments you may have, that might be useful for me as
> guidance on Feb 28, here on the list.
>
> The draft agenda for the Feb 28 consultation is here:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/February%20Consultation/February-%20Draft%20Agenda.docx
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/4e91d13e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APC_IGF2013 input_Feb2013.pdf
Type: application/force-download
Size: 123700 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/4e91d13e/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 15:49:57 2013
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:49:57 +0100
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 event on Enhanced Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <908B78BA-441B-41E0-8BC2-9BF86C5DDAB4@acm.org>
References: <908B78BA-441B-41E0-8BC2-9BF86C5DDAB4@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAGF_KH89S+Wt4gDajs6=Js=ujQcw83LyN18jZzC0Yw6NHK9zXg@mail.gmail.com>

For information, there will be another, complementary (and coordinated)
event  on Enhanced Cooperation, organized by ICANN and APNIC during the
WSIS+10.

See :
https://www.unesco-ci.org/cmscore/events/50-enhanced-cooperation-and-internet-addressing-organizations

It will take place on Wednesday February 27th, from 9:30 to 11 in Room 12.

Best

Bertrand


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> aka EC
>
>
> https://www.apc.org/en/news/enhanced-cooperation-wsis10-review-event
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (
www.internetjurisdiction.net)
Member, ICANN Board of Directors
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/b99c679d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nne75 at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 21 18:43:15 2013
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:43:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Preparing for the IGF Open Consultation
In-Reply-To: <51268345.50907@apc.org>
References: <20130220145304.1f8a21c3@quill.bollow.ch> <51268345.50907@apc.org>
Message-ID: <1361490195.95678.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Interesting report from APC, Anriette.  I do identify with most of the issues raised there.  Here are a few other thoughts:


	1. The Good: the organising of a huge IT show at the same time at the Baku Expo center was a great initiative by the host country.
	2. The bad: The rip-off of Azeri taxis was really outrageous.

	3. The future: In 2013, it will be interesting to see some local IG-oriented organisations take part in the  event, not just at hospitality level. I did not see a critical massof Azeris in the sessions.  I know that Indonesia has a huge blogger community and it will be interesting to see them fully: in sessions and exhibition areas
Regards

Nnenna


 


Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants
Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development
Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820
Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org 
nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com



________________________________
 From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org 
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Preparing for the IGF Open Consultation
 

Dear all

Attached is the APC assessment of the 2012 IGF and recommendations for the 2013 IGF.

We support the IRP coalition's proposals for a main themefocused on 'internet governance principles'. 

Anriette


 
On 20/02/2013 15:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:

[with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all In regard to the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Open
Consultation on Feb 28 in Paris: I will be there and available to represent the IGC. However I will be
able to this only effectively to the extent that I get informed in
advance about the viewpoints that we have in the Caucus. Of course, for the points on which we have reached consensus during
preparation of our written contribution, that consensus will also guide
me in everything that I will say on those points. But there may be a need to react to proposals of other stakeholder
groups, etc, and hence there is IMO a need for additional preparation. As far as I can see, the planned synthesis is not available yet. However all the written contributions from various stakeholder
organizations are available at
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf . Please post any comments you may have, that might be useful for me as
guidance on Feb 28, here on the list. The draft agenda for the Feb 28 consultation is here:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/February%20Consultation/February-%20Draft%20Agenda.docx Greetings,
Norbert 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130221/15be1087/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Feb 21 19:56:50 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 06:26:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] 2013 outlook from RIPE
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYqJUbLsXUoyj1c3deSDi6r4y_98ODuToi+D1vj3wMmHJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACAaNxgBdQqDsTWNzEWqHr0MYmPSF2w-MsmSX7frpmRkZ24_Gw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+EjHYqJUbLsXUoyj1c3deSDi6r4y_98ODuToi+D1vj3wMmHJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <489B0D0D-1BDC-4513-8B4D-ECA433CEFF31@hserus.net>

As the others have pointed out, nobody makes a penny out of it. Which is what it being a cost center means.  Believe it or not, quite a lot of things related to the Internet take place that aren't all part of a plot to fill ICANN and verisign's pockets, extend USG hegemony over the Internet, or any of the other usual canards.

--srs (iPad)

On 22-Feb-2013, at 0:18, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:39 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/chrisb/internet-governance-and-the-ripe-ncc-the-year-ahead
> 
> - - -
> 
> Interesting to know about RIPE policies.
> 
> Who pays for the infrastructure ? Something is missing.
> 
> Who pays for root service ? Taxpayers in all countries.
> Since most rootops are government funded institutions.
> 
> Who makes money out of root service ?
> Mostly ICANN, and Verisign, inter alia. And no tax.
> 
> Louis
> - - -
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/9a88ea1b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Feb 21 23:00:26 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:30:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] Geoff Huston on Multistakeholderism and the Internet
 Policy debate
Message-ID: <5126ed5a.TNwfRQXrTHulyoyn%suresh@hserus.net>

Well worth a read

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130221_multi_stakeholderism_and_the_internet_policy_debate/

--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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Feb 22 01:48:23 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:48:23 +0900
Subject: [governance] Call for nominations: CSTD WG on enhanced
 cooperation
In-Reply-To: <51267C46.9010609@apc.org>
References: <51267C46.9010609@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAFabd1K+Og66BavcgODrXa8p=jOY4ZtVN9E+Znf3q+R9PRR8AA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Anriette,

Thanks for this information.

Point 7 mentions a time commitment and willingness  to travel to
meetings. Will CSTD cover travel and other expenses to attend
meetings?

What's the closing date for nominations and general timeline for
announcing the WG members etc,

Best,

Adam



On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> Dear colleagues
>
> *Call for nominees from civil society to join the CSTD Working Group on
> Enhanced Cooperation*
>
> I have been asked by Mr. Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chairperson of the
> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to act as
> the focal point for gathering nominations for the 5 civil society
> positions on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I realise
> that the IGC Nomcom has already started the process of gathering
> nominations and will definitely include the names they propose in the
> pool I compile along with an explanation of how they were selected.
>
> Please pass this invitation around to other civil society organisations
> or networks you work with.
>
> *Background*
>
> The formation of such a working group (WG) was first discussed at the
> 15th session of the CSTD in May 2012. The request to the Chairperson to
> convene the group was confirmed in resolution 67/195 of the 67th session
> of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
> http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/195
>
> The task of the WG will bes to examine the "mandate of the World Summit
> on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained
> in the Tunis Agenda, through seeking, compiling and reviewing inputs
> from all Member States and all other stakeholders, and to make
> recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate". The working
> group has to report to the Commission at its 17th session in 2014 as an
> input to the overall review of the outcomes of the WSIS. I am not in a
> position to say how many times the WG will meet, but assume it is likely
> to meet at least twice before submitting its report in May 2014.
>
> *Role of the civil society focal point*
>
> The role of the focal point for civil society is to assist the CSTD
> Chair in reaching out to interested parties among civil society who
> would like to be considered for participation in the group. The Chair of
> the CSTD will decide on and announce the final composition of the
> Working Group.
>
> *Composition of the WG*
>
> The WG will be made up of representatives from 22 Member States (four
> per regional group plus the two that have hosted the World Summit on the
> Information Society) and as invitees, five representatives each from (a)
> the private sector, (b) civil society, (c) the technical and academic
> communities and (d) intergovernmental and international organizations.
>
> *Process for nominations*
>
> If you would like to nominate yourself, or another individual, please
> send an email to me (anriette at apc.org) copying Emilar Vushe
> (emilar at apc.org).
>
> Please include:
>
> 1. Your name, email and contact number
> 2. The civil  society entities (network or organisations) that you are
> affiliated to
> 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your
> job title)
> 3. Your country of residence
> 4. Your nationality and your gender
>
> Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD
> chair in making the final selection:
>
> 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
> policy processes that involve cooperation between governments, and also
> between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups? Note that
> people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
> a lot to contribute.
>
> 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
> the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?
>
> 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
> and participate in these meetings and in WG activity? Meetings will mostly
> be in Geneva.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions. I will try to answer them
> to the best of my ability.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Anriette Esterhuysen
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Feb 22 02:03:46 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:03:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] Preparing for the IGF Open Consultation
In-Reply-To: <1361490195.95678.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <20130220145304.1f8a21c3@quill.bollow.ch> <51268345.50907@apc.org> <1361490195.95678.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <51271852.2050905@apc.org>

Dear Nnenna

Someone from the APC community actually gave an input about the IT show. 
They said it was good that it was there, but bad that IGF participants 
were not encouraged to participate. But perhaps some people felt they 
did know about it. I only found out when I became so desperate for 
coffee that I was stopping complete stranger to ask where they got 
theirs.. and that is how I found out you could get a really good cup 
next door at the expo :)

Taxi... some were actually not so bad.. but yes :) Ihad mostly very nice 
taxi drivers.

And *yes* to your future proposal. Indonesia has very dynamic civil 
society in general and I really hope we can build on that and benefit 
from their participation. APC might even have our member assembly before 
or after the IGF.. and we are definitely thinking about a pre-eventof 
some kind that will be of interest to Indonesia mediaand civil society 
groups.

Did you see the proposals from Donny from ICT Watch in Indonesia for 
main themes?
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/discussionspace?func=view&catid=7&id=285

Anriette



On 22/02/2013 01:43, Nnenna wrote:
> Interesting report from APC, Anriette.  I do identify with most of the issues raised there.  Here are a few other thoughts:
>
>
> 	1. The Good: the organising of a huge IT show at the same time at the Baku Expo center was a great initiative by the host country.
> 	2. The bad: The rip-off of Azeri taxis was really outrageous.
>
> 	3. The future: In 2013, it will be interesting to see some local IG-oriented organisations take part in the  event, not just at hospitality level. I did not see a critical massof Azeris in the sessions.  I know that Indonesia has a huge blogger community and it will be interesting to see them fully: in sessions and exhibition areas
> Regards
>
> Nnenna
>
>
>   
>
>
> Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants
> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development
> Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820
> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org
> nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>   From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [governance] Preparing for the IGF Open Consultation
>   
>
> Dear all
>
> Attached is the APC assessment of the 2012 IGF and recommendations for the 2013 IGF.
>
> We support the IRP coalition's proposals for a main themefocused on 'internet governance principles'.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>   
> On 20/02/2013 15:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all In regard to the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Open
> Consultation on Feb 28 in Paris: I will be there and available to represent the IGC. However I will be
> able to this only effectively to the extent that I get informed in
> advance about the viewpoints that we have in the Caucus. Of course, for the points on which we have reached consensus during
> preparation of our written contribution, that consensus will also guide
> me in everything that I will say on those points. But there may be a need to react to proposals of other stakeholder
> groups, etc, and hence there is IMO a need for additional preparation. As far as I can see, the planned synthesis is not available yet. However all the written contributions from various stakeholder
> organizations are available at
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf . Please post any comments you may have, that might be useful for me as
> guidance on Feb 28, here on the list. The draft agenda for the Feb 28 consultation is here:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/February%20Consultation/February-%20Draft%20Agenda.docx Greetings,
> Norbert
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/719b9889/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Feb 22 03:20:20 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:20:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] Call for nominations: CSTD WG on enhanced
 cooperation
In-Reply-To: <CAFabd1K+Og66BavcgODrXa8p=jOY4ZtVN9E+Znf3q+R9PRR8AA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51267C46.9010609@apc.org> <CAFabd1K+Og66BavcgODrXa8p=jOY4ZtVN9E+Znf3q+R9PRR8AA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51272A44.9000209@apc.org>

Dear Adam

On support for travel expenses. The GA resolution encourages 
contributions to be made into a trust fund to support the work of the 
working group.
Based on past experience while serving on the WG on IGF Improvements 
there was not always support available for travel to the meetings, but 
the CSTD secretariat ensured that remote participation was possible, and 
the Chairperson, Mr. Peter Major, was very sensitive to the inclusion of 
the remote participants.

On dates. Apologies for leaving that out.

*Deadline for submitting CS nominations to me: 4 March 2013*

Deadline for submitting nominations to the CSTD chairperson is 8 March 2013

Announcement of composition of WG 11 - 15 March 2013

  April - May 2013: first meeting of the working group (pending 
availability of resources)

30 -31 May 2013: second meeting of the working group (just before the 
16th session of the CSTD in June)

Anriette

> Hi Anriette,
>
> Thanks for this information.
>
> Point 7 mentions a time commitment and willingness  to travel to
> meetings. Will CSTD cover travel and other expenses to attend
> meetings?
>
> What's the closing date for nominations and general timeline for
> announcing the WG members etc,
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues
>>
>> *Call for nominees from civil society to join the CSTD Working Group on
>> Enhanced Cooperation*
>>
>> I have been asked by Mr. Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chairperson of the
>> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to act as
>> the focal point for gathering nominations for the 5 civil society
>> positions on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I realise
>> that the IGC Nomcom has already started the process of gathering
>> nominations and will definitely include the names they propose in the
>> pool I compile along with an explanation of how they were selected.
>>
>> Please pass this invitation around to other civil society organisations
>> or networks you work with.
>>
>> *Background*
>>
>> The formation of such a working group (WG) was first discussed at the
>> 15th session of the CSTD in May 2012. The request to the Chairperson to
>> convene the group was confirmed in resolution 67/195 of the 67th session
>> of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
>> http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/195
>>
>> The task of the WG will bes to examine the "mandate of the World Summit
>> on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained
>> in the Tunis Agenda, through seeking, compiling and reviewing inputs
>> from all Member States and all other stakeholders, and to make
>> recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate". The working
>> group has to report to the Commission at its 17th session in 2014 as an
>> input to the overall review of the outcomes of the WSIS. I am not in a
>> position to say how many times the WG will meet, but assume it is likely
>> to meet at least twice before submitting its report in May 2014.
>>
>> *Role of the civil society focal point*
>>
>> The role of the focal point for civil society is to assist the CSTD
>> Chair in reaching out to interested parties among civil society who
>> would like to be considered for participation in the group. The Chair of
>> the CSTD will decide on and announce the final composition of the
>> Working Group.
>>
>> *Composition of the WG*
>>
>> The WG will be made up of representatives from 22 Member States (four
>> per regional group plus the two that have hosted the World Summit on the
>> Information Society) and as invitees, five representatives each from (a)
>> the private sector, (b) civil society, (c) the technical and academic
>> communities and (d) intergovernmental and international organizations.
>>
>> *Process for nominations*
>>
>> If you would like to nominate yourself, or another individual, please
>> send an email to me (anriette at apc.org) copying Emilar Vushe
>> (emilar at apc.org).
>>
>> Please include:
>>
>> 1. Your name, email and contact number
>> 2. The civil  society entities (network or organisations) that you are
>> affiliated to
>> 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your
>> job title)
>> 3. Your country of residence
>> 4. Your nationality and your gender
>>
>> Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD
>> chair in making the final selection:
>>
>> 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
>> policy processes that involve cooperation between governments, and also
>> between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups? Note that
>> people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
>> a lot to contribute.
>>
>> 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
>> the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?
>>
>> 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
>> and participate in these meetings and in WG activity? Meetings will mostly
>> be in Geneva.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions. I will try to answer them
>> to the best of my ability.
>>
>> Sincerely
>>
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/c5931a55/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Fri Feb 22 04:58:58 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:58:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why do US
 and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
 Exceptions?)
Message-ID: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:41 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>> Even there, the wgig report does seem to over stretch the igov definition
>> to a considerable extent.
>
> agreed, perhaps if we are going to split the list

by the way I've continued to ponder that idea, and I think I'm going
to take the view that
even if from the perspective of having the best possible tools for
productive discussions
that would be the right thing to do, the idea of splitting the list is
too incompatible with
the way in which this Internet Governance Caucus has been constituted...

> it should be along the
> lines of "Governance of the Internet" and "Governance of things people do on
> the Internet".

Hmm... I think that I understand roughly what you mean with this (if I
understand you
right, the division that you're proposing is very similar to what I
proposed, just using
different concepts to try to draw a line).

However it seems to me that "Governance of the Internet" vs.
"Governance of things
people do on the Internet" could also be interpreted differently, and
I think that it would
be hard to argue that that would be an invalid interpretation:

Specifically, "things people do on the Internet" could be interpreted
so that "chat on
facebook" would be an example of it. "Throwing people out of
chatrooms" if they are
somehow determined to be middle-aged men pretending to be teenage girls would be
"Governance of things people do on the Internet". Making sure that the service
provided by Facebook Inc. is continuously available would then be seen
as part of
"Governance of the Internet".

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of considering governance of
a very proprietary
platform to be part of Internet governance. But probably my discomfort
is primarily with
the fact that a platform that (when considered from the perspective of
its user base and
the associated network effects) is as important as Facebook is allowed
to be totally
proprietary - as opposed to it having at least standardized and open
interfaces that would
allow third parties to fully participate in Facebook's user community,
without submitting to
Facebook Inc.'s policies on what they do with people's data, or to
Facebook Inc.'s policies
on application software.

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 sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de  Fri Feb 22 07:30:37 2013
From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:30:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG - Draft Programme out now for comments
Message-ID: <00b601ce10f8$6bc046a0$4340d3e0$@hoferichter@freenet.de>

 

*******We apologise for cross posting*******

 



 

cid:4D7E4731.09B495E6.00000002


   Lisbon, 20 -21 June 2013
Information letter No. 02/13


 

Dear EuroDIGGERs, 

 

Internet for society - how to serve the public interest?

was agreed as the overarching title for EuroDIG 2013. 

After some intensive discussion during the first planning meeting in Lisbon,
the core team was asked to draft a
<http://www.guarder.net/eurodig/2013/EuroDIG%2013_draft%20programme_20130220
.pdf> preliminary programme. This programme is now open for comments and
suggestions. All interested individuals, organisations and communities are
now invited to send their comments to the EuroDIG secretariat.

1.     EuroDIG 13 -  2nd planning meeting

During the second planning meeting in Paris, on 28 February 2013, we are
leading to the validation of the draft outline, discuss names of experts and
organisations to be involved as focal points, organising teams etc.
Everybody is welcome to participate in this meeting. We are trying to
organize remote participation, details will be announce at our website.

The meeting will take place  directly after in the IGF open consultation
around 6 pm, at UNESCO Head Quarters, room XI, located at
<http://www.unesco.org/visit/uk/frames/v4/build.htm> the main building in
Place de Fontenoy . 

Please note: you have to register to enter the UNESCO premises.
<http://www.unesco-ci.org/cmscore/civicrm/event/register?id=14&reset=1> The
registration link is here available.

2.     Side events for EuroDIG 13 in Lisbon

 

You are invited to hold your side event before or during the EuroDIG event
in Lisbon at hotel Altis. Please send your request to the EuroDIG
secretariat until 30 April 2013 to figure out the logistical details.

 

3.    Hotel booking

We can offer EuroDIG participants special arrangement with a number of
hotels in different price categories:

. <http://www.altishotels.com/EN/HotelAltisLisboa/> Altis Lisboa (5star) -
the EuroDIG venue

.SANA Lisboa Hotel <http://www.lisboa.sanahotels.com/en/>  (4 star)

. <http://www.domcarloshoteis.com/domcarloshoteis/homepage.asp?Language=EN>
Hotel Dom Carlos Liberty (3star)

All the hotels are located near the Altis and near the main Avenue - Ave.
Liberty.  Please use the
<http://www.veranatura.pt/paginas_php/form4/formulario.php> Hotel
Reservation Form for EuroDIG to make your reservation and payment.

The rooms will be guaranteed until 30 April 2013 only. After this date, room
reservations will be according availability of the hotels. We recommend to
make your reservation asap, as during this time of the year many hotels are
fully booked due to other conferences in Lisbon.

 

The EuroDIG team

 

If you don't want receive this information letter in the future please send
a message to
<mailto:office at eurodig.org?subject=please%20delete%20me%20from%20the%20list>
office at eurodig.org.

 

  _____  




S a n d r a   H o f e r i c h t e r  /  W o l f   L u d w I g

 

Secretariat

 

European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG)

 

 <mailto:office at eurodig.org> office at eurodig.org
 <http://www.eurodig.org> www.eurodig.org

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/fcb5d455/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19555 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/fcb5d455/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From avri at ella.com  Fri Feb 22 09:04:12 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:04:12 -0500
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG - Draft Programme out now for comments
In-Reply-To: <00b601ce10f8$6bc046a0$4340d3e0$@hoferichter@freenet.de>
References: <00b601ce10f8$6bc046a0$4340d3e0$@hoferichter@freenet.de>
Message-ID: <FC542A14-2A6A-400C-9210-A813B257D12E@ella.com>


Hi,  


On 22 Feb 2013, at 07:30, sandra hoferichter wrote:

>  preliminary programme.  http://www.guarder.net/eurodig/2013/EuroDIG%2013_draft%20programme_20130220.pdf

Thanks for the info.  Looks like a good program

> The rooms will be guaranteed until 30 April 2013 only. After this date, room reservations will be according availability of the hotels. We recommend to make your reservation asap, as during this time of the year many hotels are fully booked due to other conferences in Lisbon.
> 
> 

Are these rooms set up to require up front payment?

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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com  Fri Feb 22 10:23:00 2013
From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:23:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for nominations: CSTD WG on enhanced
 cooperation
In-Reply-To: <51267C46.9010609@apc.org>
References: <51267C46.9010609@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAPcSPKX5ydo52mz0KvJ2CcqYnjWVWjhTWdsHDKm7BZ-vtMjkbA@mail.gmail.com>

1. Your name, email and contact number

     -SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

     -b.schombe at gmail.com

     -+243998983491/+243813684512


2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are
affiliated
to

    -CENTRE AFRICAIN D’ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)


3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your job
title)

      -ICT CONSULTANT


3. Your country of residence

        -DR CONGO


4. Your nationality and your gender

        -DR CONGO


5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
policy processes that involve cooperation between governments, and also
between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups? Note that
people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
a lot to contribute.

 *CAFEC it is a member of Least Development Country Watch (LDCwatch) at
national level. LDC Watch is a member of Social Watch International. The
CAFEC is also part of the ICT cluster and Development program for poverty
reduction in the DRC. CAFEC plays the leading role in the national
activities on the process of implementation of the National and IGF in the
organization of subregional and regional forum of Internet governance in
the DRC.*

*It is also planned a seminar workshop for actors multiparty DRC on
Internet governance.*


6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?\

*I am personally a member of the Executive Secretariat of the IGF Central
Africa, I received a certified training DiploFoundation on Internet
governance. The CAFEC has been accredited since 2003 at the World Summit on
the Information Society since 2008 and UNCTAD.*

*I participated actively in the Global Caucus civil society on Internet
governance.*

*-at the local level, I bring my expertise to the department in charge of
ICT for the achievement of the national IGF.
*
7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
and participate in these meetings and in WG activity? Meetings will mostly
be in Geneva.

*I still have as usual to attend all meetings regardless of the place or
location.*

* *



 Baudouin








2013/2/21 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>

> Dear colleagues
>
> *Call for nominees from civil society to join the CSTD Working Group on
> Enhanced Cooperation*
>
> I have been asked by Mr. Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chairperson of the
> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to act as
> the focal point for gathering nominations for the 5 civil society
> positions on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I realise
> that the IGC Nomcom has already started the process of gathering
> nominations and will definitely include the names they propose in the
> pool I compile along with an explanation of how they were selected.
>
> Please pass this invitation around to other civil society organisations
> or networks you work with.
>
> *Background*
>
> The formation of such a working group (WG) was first discussed at the
> 15th session of the CSTD in May 2012. The request to the Chairperson to
> convene the group was confirmed in resolution 67/195 of the 67th session
> of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
> http://www.un.org/ga/search/**view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/**195<http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/195>
>
> The task of the WG will bes to examine the "mandate of the World Summit
> on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained
> in the Tunis Agenda, through seeking, compiling and reviewing inputs
> from all Member States and all other stakeholders, and to make
> recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate". The working
> group has to report to the Commission at its 17th session in 2014 as an
> input to the overall review of the outcomes of the WSIS. I am not in a
> position to say how many times the WG will meet, but assume it is likely
> to meet at least twice before submitting its report in May 2014.
>
> *Role of the civil society focal point*
>
> The role of the focal point for civil society is to assist the CSTD
> Chair in reaching out to interested parties among civil society who
> would like to be considered for participation in the group. The Chair of
> the CSTD will decide on and announce the final composition of the
> Working Group.
>
> *Composition of the WG*
>
> The WG will be made up of representatives from 22 Member States (four
> per regional group plus the two that have hosted the World Summit on the
> Information Society) and as invitees, five representatives each from (a)
> the private sector, (b) civil society, (c) the technical and academic
> communities and (d) intergovernmental and international organizations.
>
> *Process for nominations*
>
> If you would like to nominate yourself, or another individual, please
> send an email to me (anriette at apc.org) copying Emilar Vushe
> (emilar at apc.org).
>
> Please include:
>
> 1. Your name, email and contact number
> 2. The civil  society entities (network or organisations) that you are
> affiliated to
> 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your
> job title)
> 3. Your country of residence
> 4. Your nationality and your gender
>
> Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD
> chair in making the final selection:
>
> 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
> policy processes that involve cooperation between governments, and also
> between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups? Note that
> people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
> a lot to contribute.
>
> 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
> the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?
>
> 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
> and participate in these meetings and in WG activity? Meetings will mostly
> be in Geneva.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions. I will try to answer them
> to the best of my ability.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Anriette Esterhuysen
>
> --
> ------------------------------**------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/
ACADEMIE DES TIC
At-Large Member
NCSG Member

email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com
         Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net
tél:+243998983491
skype:b.schombe
wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net
blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/d375c0e3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Feb 22 10:56:29 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:56:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] Call for nominations: CSTD WG on enhanced
 cooperation
In-Reply-To: <CAPcSPKX5ydo52mz0KvJ2CcqYnjWVWjhTWdsHDKm7BZ-vtMjkbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51267C46.9010609@apc.org> <CAPcSPKX5ydo52mz0KvJ2CcqYnjWVWjhTWdsHDKm7BZ-vtMjkbA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5127952D.6060807@apc.org>

Thanks Baudouin

People can send these to me and Emilar at apc.org off list to keep traffic 
down in this list, and also to not cause confusion with the IGC nomcom 
process.

Anriette

On 22/02/2013 17:23, Baudouin Schombe wrote:
> 1. Your name, email and contact number
>
>       -SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>
>       -b.schombe at gmail.com
>
>       -+243998983491/+243813684512
>
>
> 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are
> affiliated
> to
>
>      -CENTRE AFRICAIN D�ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>
>
> 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your job
> title)
>
>        -ICT CONSULTANT
>
>
> 3. Your country of residence
>
>          -DR CONGO
>
>
> 4. Your nationality and your gender
>
>          -DR CONGO
>
>
> 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
> policy processes that involve cooperation between governments, and also
> between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups? Note that
> people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
> a lot to contribute.
>
>   *CAFEC it is a member of Least Development Country Watch (LDCwatch) at
> national level. LDC Watch is a member of Social Watch International. The
> CAFEC is also part of the ICT cluster and Development program for poverty
> reduction in the DRC. CAFEC plays the leading role in the national
> activities on the process of implementation of the National and IGF in the
> organization of subregional and regional forum of Internet governance in
> the DRC.*
>
> *It is also planned a seminar workshop for actors multiparty DRC on
> Internet governance.*
>
>
> 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
> the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?\
>
> *I am personally a member of the Executive Secretariat of the IGF Central
> Africa, I received a certified training DiploFoundation on Internet
> governance. The CAFEC has been accredited since 2003 at the World Summit on
> the Information Society since 2008 and UNCTAD.*
>
> *I participated actively in the Global Caucus civil society on Internet
> governance.*
>
> *-at the local level, I bring my expertise to the department in charge of
> ICT for the achievement of the national IGF.
> *
> 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
> and participate in these meetings and in WG activity? Meetings will mostly
> be in Geneva.
>
> *I still have as usual to attend all meetings regardless of the place or
> location.*
>
> * *
>
>
>
>   Baudouin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/2/21 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>
>> Dear colleagues
>>
>> *Call for nominees from civil society to join the CSTD Working Group on
>> Enhanced Cooperation*
>>
>> I have been asked by Mr. Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chairperson of the
>> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to act as
>> the focal point for gathering nominations for the 5 civil society
>> positions on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I realise
>> that the IGC Nomcom has already started the process of gathering
>> nominations and will definitely include the names they propose in the
>> pool I compile along with an explanation of how they were selected.
>>
>> Please pass this invitation around to other civil society organisations
>> or networks you work with.
>>
>> *Background*
>>
>> The formation of such a working group (WG) was first discussed at the
>> 15th session of the CSTD in May 2012. The request to the Chairperson to
>> convene the group was confirmed in resolution 67/195 of the 67th session
>> of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
>> http://www.un.org/ga/search/**view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/**195<http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/195>
>>
>> The task of the WG will bes to examine the "mandate of the World Summit
>> on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained
>> in the Tunis Agenda, through seeking, compiling and reviewing inputs
>> from all Member States and all other stakeholders, and to make
>> recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate". The working
>> group has to report to the Commission at its 17th session in 2014 as an
>> input to the overall review of the outcomes of the WSIS. I am not in a
>> position to say how many times the WG will meet, but assume it is likely
>> to meet at least twice before submitting its report in May 2014.
>>
>> *Role of the civil society focal point*
>>
>> The role of the focal point for civil society is to assist the CSTD
>> Chair in reaching out to interested parties among civil society who
>> would like to be considered for participation in the group. The Chair of
>> the CSTD will decide on and announce the final composition of the
>> Working Group.
>>
>> *Composition of the WG*
>>
>> The WG will be made up of representatives from 22 Member States (four
>> per regional group plus the two that have hosted the World Summit on the
>> Information Society) and as invitees, five representatives each from (a)
>> the private sector, (b) civil society, (c) the technical and academic
>> communities and (d) intergovernmental and international organizations.
>>
>> *Process for nominations*
>>
>> If you would like to nominate yourself, or another individual, please
>> send an email to me (anriette at apc.org) copying Emilar Vushe
>> (emilar at apc.org).
>>
>> Please include:
>>
>> 1. Your name, email and contact number
>> 2. The civil  society entities (network or organisations) that you are
>> affiliated to
>> 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your
>> job title)
>> 3. Your country of residence
>> 4. Your nationality and your gender
>>
>> Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD
>> chair in making the final selection:
>>
>> 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
>> policy processes that involve cooperation between governments, and also
>> between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups? Note that
>> people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
>> a lot to contribute.
>>
>> 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
>> the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?
>>
>> 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
>> and participate in these meetings and in WG activity? Meetings will mostly
>> be in Geneva.
>>
>> Please let me know if you have any questions. I will try to answer them
>> to the best of my ability.
>>
>> Sincerely
>>
>> Anriette Esterhuysen
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------**------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/2c051033/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Feb 22 11:07:59 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:07:59 +0200
Subject: SV: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation
 at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <C9CBC707-EF69-4AF5-8D14-FCA09929E742@traceynaughton.com>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <C9CBC707-EF69-4AF5-8D14-FCA09929E742@traceynaughton.com>
Message-ID: <512797DF.6000307@apc.org>

Thanks for all the support everyone.  And thanks for the inputs so far.

Michael.. not sure when you and I will find time to organised our 
thoughts and everyone's inputs :) But lets try. Many useful comments 
have come in. AlonBar's input sent to the IRP list also very useful.

By some kind of 'research coincidence' I found this text on - APC's 
positions going into Tunis - today on Wikipedia. Pasted below. I have no 
idea who put there, but it was really quite amazing to read it, and to 
remember suddenly the exact time and place when we drafted this text. I 
also remember when many of us still in this space drafted the Geneva 
statement"shaping information societies for humanneeds"(and that 
includes you Tracey!)

The only proposal below that we have 'paused' is the idea of a 
'multi-stakeholder' convention. We paused because we feared that any 
convention that could be negotiated would at the lowest common 
denominator level and mightdo more harm than good. It would be good to 
see what comes out of serious discussions on principles for internet 
governance and then reassess this.

Anriette

The second phase took place 2005-11-16 to 2005-11-18 in Tunis, Tunisia 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunis,_Tunisia>. It resulted in agreement 
on the Tunis Commitment <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunis_Commitment> 
and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunis_Agenda_for_the_Information_Society>, 
and the creation of the Internet Governance Forum 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum>.

Just on the eve of the November 2005 Tunis event, the Association for 
Progressive Communications 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Progressive_Communications> came 
out with its stand. (APC is an international network of civil society 
organizations – whose goal is to empower and support groups and 
individuals working for peace, human rights, development and protection 
of the environment, through the strategic use of information and 
communication technologies (ICTs), including the internet).

APC said it had participated extensively in the internet governance 
process at the World Summit on Information Society. It says: Out of this 
participation and in collaboration with other partners, including 
members of the WSIS civil society internet governance caucus, APC has 
crystallized a set of recommendations with regard to internet governance 
ahead of the final Summit in Tunis in November 2005. APC proposed 
specific actions in each of the following five areas:

  * The establishment of an Internet Governance Forum
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Governance_Forum>;
  * The transformation of ICANN <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN>
    into a global body with full authority over DNS
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System> management, and an
    appropriate form of accountability to its stakeholders in
    government, private sector and civil society;
  * The initiation of a multi-stakeholder convention on internet
    governance and universal human rights that will codify the basic
    rights applicable to the internet, which will be legally binding in
    international law with particular emphasis on clauses in the
    universal declaration of human rights specifically relevant to the
    internet, such as rights to freedom of expression, freedom of
    association and privacy.
  * Ensuring internet access is universal and affordable. APC argued:
    "The internet is a global public space that should be open and
    accessible to all on a non-discriminatory basis. The internet,
    therefore, must be seen as a global public infrastructure. In this
    regard we recognize the internet to be a global public good
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_public_good> related to the
    concept of the common heritage of humanity
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage_of_humanity> and
    access to it is in the public interest, and must be provided as a
    global public commitment to equality."^[7]
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society#cite_note-7>

  * Measures to promote capacity building in "developing" countries with
    regard to increasing "developing" country participation in global
    public policy forums on internet governance.

On 21/02/2013 05:22, Tracey Naughton wrote:
> Excellent choices!
>
> Tracey Naughton
>
> On 21 Feb 2013, at 3:36 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>
> This has my full support.
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org på vegne af Norbert Bollow
> Sendt: on 20-02-2013 11:19
> Til: IGC
> Emne: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at WSIS+10 in Paris
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
> As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> have done so.
>
> By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> process.
>
> First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> reasonably quick response was expected.
>
> I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> potential nominees and selection criteria.
>
> For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
>
> I believe that we have a very good end result:
>
>
> Opening session:
>   Grace Githaiga
>
> "High level" session on Monday afternoon:
>   Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein
>
> Closing:
>   Anita Gurumurthy
>
>
> I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> widely, as per the email message pasted below.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
>
>> I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
>> civil society
> Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
>
> As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
>
> Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> you're active in.
>
> Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> also taking into account what in your view may have been
> underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
>
> Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> processes.
>
> 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
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/831b1b5c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Feb 22 11:33:47 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:33:47 -0500
Subject: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
 do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
 Exceptions?)
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhiPugpJwZkZYfH3cwZgP2OhTQ=iCn_sjFc8TPabD-xJw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

<snip>


> that would be the right thing to do, the idea of splitting the list is
> too incompatible with
> the way in which this Internet Governance Caucus has been constituted...
>


agreed


>
> > it should be along the
> > lines of "Governance of the Internet" and "Governance of things people
> do on
> > the Internet".
>
> Hmm... I think that I understand roughly what you mean with this (if I
> understand you
> right, the division that you're proposing is very similar to what I
> proposed, just using
> different concepts to try to draw a line).
>
>
yes


> However it seems to me that "Governance of the Internet" vs.
> "Governance of things
> people do on the Internet" could also be interpreted differently, and
> I think that it would
> be hard to argue that that would be an invalid interpretation:
>
> Specifically, "things people do on the Internet" could be interpreted
> so that "chat on
> facebook" would be an example of it.


yes


> "Throwing people out of
> chatrooms" if they are
> somehow determined to be middle-aged men pretending to be teenage girls
> would be
> "Governance of things people do on the Internet".



yes


> Making sure that the service
> provided by Facebook Inc. is continuously available would then be seen
> as part of
> "Governance of the Internet".
>
>
no, this is entirely a FB issue, not an IG issue.  delegation of the name
.facebook however would be a "governance of the Internet" issue.


> I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of considering governance of
> a very proprietary
> platform to be part of Internet governance.



me too, which is why I don't classify it as such.


> But probably my discomfort
> is primarily with
> the fact that a platform that (when considered from the perspective of
> its user base and
> the associated network effects) is as important as Facebook is allowed
> to be totally
> proprietary - as opposed to it having at least standardized and open
> interfaces that would
> allow third parties to fully participate in Facebook's user community,
> without submitting to
> Facebook Inc.'s policies on what they do with people's data, or to
> Facebook Inc.'s policies
> on application software.
>
>
I can't parse this.  In terms of "Governance of the Internet",
facebook.comhas exactly the same "importance" as
bollow.ch.

Would you like it if there was an organisation who told you what protocols
you could and could not use for bollow.ch?


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/82f9d902/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Feb 22 11:46:30 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:46:30 +0900
Subject: SV: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation
 at WSIS+10 in Paris
In-Reply-To: <512797DF.6000307@apc.org>
References: <20130220111928.7ae4cf77@quill.bollow.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331619@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<C9CBC707-EF69-4AF5-8D14-FCA09929E742@traceynaughton.com>
	<512797DF.6000307@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAFabd1L23w2obOAW6L44HrXk-WhYeU8Yfa27WAeF3h679LgDRQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Anriette,

APC mentioned  "global public good"

4th draft of the ITU secretary general's report for the WTPF talks
about that <http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/report-sg.aspx>,
bottom of page 7

quote
Today, the Internet is becoming “one of the basic commodities of life”
and various studies have cited the information and knowledge provided
over the Internet as examples of global public goods . The Internet is
comprised of many individual networks, although some networks (but not
always the content) may be the property of distinct groups, companies
or individuals. Applications such as the World Wide Web, E-mail, and
Instant Messaging have changed the lives of ordinary people in some
parts of the world. It is widely recognized that the utility and value
of a network increases with the square of the growth in the number of
nodes and users of that network.
end quote

The report references "Knowledge as a Global Public Good", Joseph
Stiglitz, <http://cgt.columbia.edu/files/papers/1999_Knowledge_as_Global_Public_Good_stiglitz.pdf>,
saying
"most observers agree that it is the knowledge and information
provided over the Internet which are non-rivalrous and non-excludable,
rather than the networks (which may be rivalrous and excludable)."


And then we have the uniquely assigned recourses that enable the
Internet to be what it is, IP addresses, domain names, AS numbers,
perhaps port numbers, and all that good stuff.

Anyway, there were a lot of good things on the CS proposals from that time.

Adam


On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> Thanks for all the support everyone.  And thanks for the inputs so far.
>
> Michael.. not sure when you and I will find time to organised our thoughts
> and everyone's inputs :) But lets try. Many useful comments have come in.
> Alon Bar's input sent to the IRP list also very useful.
>
> By some kind of 'research coincidence' I found this text on - APC's
> positions going into Tunis -  today on Wikipedia. Pasted below. I have no
> idea who put there, but it was really quite amazing to read it, and to
> remember suddenly the exact time and place when we drafted this text. I also
> remember when many of us still in this space drafted the Geneva statement
> "shaping information societies for human needs" (and that includes you
> Tracey!)
>
> The only proposal below that we have 'paused' is the idea of a
> 'multi-stakeholder' convention. We paused because we feared that any
> convention that could be negotiated would at the lowest common denominator
> level and might do more harm than good. It would be good to see what comes
> out of serious discussions on principles for internet governance and then
> reassess this.
>
> Anriette
>
> The second phase took place 2005-11-16 to 2005-11-18 in Tunis, Tunisia. It
> resulted in agreement on the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda for the
> Information Society, and the creation of the Internet Governance Forum.
>
> Just on the eve of the November 2005 Tunis event, the Association for
> Progressive Communications came out with its stand. (APC is an international
> network of civil society organizations – whose goal is to empower and
> support groups and individuals working for peace, human rights, development
> and protection of the environment, through the strategic use of information
> and communication technologies (ICTs), including the internet).
>
> APC said it had participated extensively in the internet governance process
> at the World Summit on Information Society. It says: Out of this
> participation and in collaboration with other partners, including members of
> the WSIS civil society internet governance caucus, APC has crystallized a
> set of recommendations with regard to internet governance ahead of the final
> Summit in Tunis in November 2005. APC proposed specific actions in each of
> the following five areas:
>
> The establishment of an Internet Governance Forum;
> The transformation of ICANN into a global body with full authority over DNS
> management, and an appropriate form of accountability to its stakeholders in
> government, private sector and civil society;
> The initiation of a multi-stakeholder convention on internet governance and
> universal human rights that will codify the basic rights applicable to the
> internet, which will be legally binding in international law with particular
> emphasis on clauses in the universal declaration of human rights
> specifically relevant to the internet, such as rights to freedom of
> expression, freedom of association and privacy.
> Ensuring internet access is universal and affordable. APC argued: "The
> internet is a global public space that should be open and accessible to all
> on a non-discriminatory basis. The internet, therefore, must be seen as a
> global public infrastructure. In this regard we recognize the internet to be
> a global public good related to the concept of the common heritage of
> humanity and access to it is in the public interest, and must be provided as
> a global public commitment to equality."[7]
> Measures to promote capacity building in "developing" countries with regard
> to increasing "developing" country participation in global public policy
> forums on internet governance.
>
> On 21/02/2013 05:22, Tracey Naughton wrote:
>
> Excellent choices!
>
> Tracey Naughton
>
> On 21 Feb 2013, at 3:36 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>
> This has my full support.
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org på vegne af Norbert Bollow
> Sendt: on 20-02-2013 11:19
> Til: IGC
> Emne: [governance] Brief report Re: Civil society representation at WSIS+10
> in Paris
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
> As I mentioned before, Janis Karklins of UNESCO requested Marianne
> Franklin (one of two co-chairs of the Internet Rights and Principles
> Coalition) and myself to suggest speakers for the Paris WSIS+10 main
> sessions to represent civil society. In the absence of any really
> convincing answer to the question of who else should do this :-) we
> have done so.
>
> By necessity my participation in this process was not a formal
> nomination activity of the Caucus, which would have required a NomCom,
> and without a standing NomCom available for any tasks that might come
> up, there was simply not enough time for initiating a NomCom
> process.
>
> First there was the request regarding the opening session, and very
> recently the request regarding the other sessions. In each case a
> reasonably quick response was expected.
>
> I recommend that for future major events, a NomCom should be set up well
> in advance, and it should prepare well in advance with thoughts on
> potential nominees and selection criteria.
>
> For the current WSIS+10 event, a very much ad hoc process was used,
> where I have done my best to take into account the responses to the call
> for expressions of interest that I posted here on the list.
>
> I believe that we have a very good end result:
>
>
> Opening session:
>  Grace Githaiga
>
> "High level" session on Monday afternoon:
>  Anriette Esterhuysen and Michael Gurstein
>
> Closing:
>  Anita Gurumurthy
>
>
> I have also encouraged these civil society representatives to consult
> widely, as per the email message pasted below.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> --snip------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Janis Karklins <j.karklins at unesco.org> wrote:
>
> I am writing to you with proposal to take the floor on behalf of the
> civil society
>
> Dear Anita, Anriette, Grace and Michael (the civil society
> representatives at the plenaries of WSIS+10)
>
> As you probably know, Janis Karklins of UNESCO had requested Marianne
> and myself to suggest speakers for the WSIS+10 main sessions to
> represent civil society. In the absence of any really convincing answer
> to the question of who else should do this :-) we have done so.
>
> Speaking just from my personal perspective right now, I would like to
> encourage all of you to consult widely on what are important points to
> make, using the mailing lists of the Internet Governance Caucus and the
> Internet Rights and Principles coalition and whatever other networks
> you're active in.
>
> Of course if you do that, given the great breadth and diversity of
> civil society, you're going to get more suggestions than you can use,
> and it's of course each panelist's discretion to select which of the
> points you want to mention and which of them you want to specifically
> emphasize and how much you want to add from your personal perspective -
> also taking into account what in your view may have been
> underemphasized by other civil society speakers.
>
> Overall (and I emphasize again that I'm speaking just from my personal
> perspective here), I think that it is particularly important to clearly
> draw attention to important points that have so far been largely
> overlooked or ignored in the IGF process and other WSIS followup
> processes.
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb 22 13:04:16 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 10:04:16 -0800
Subject: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
 do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
 Exceptions?)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxhiPugpJwZkZYfH3cwZgP2OhTQ=iCn_sjFc8TPabD-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhiPugpJwZkZYfH3cwZgP2OhTQ=iCn_sjFc8TPabD-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <032f01ce1127$10e62cc0$32b28640$@gmail.com>

Ahh. How do we define "Governance of the Internet" 

 

And there is the rub, if 20% or so of humanity (say 40-50-60% of all
Internet users) is signed up to Facebook.com (or some equivalent numbers for
Google.com or mPesa, or .) and .000000001 of humanity is signed up to
bollow.ch then surely "quantity" becomes "quality" and particularly if
activities are undertaken using those applications/built on those platforms
that are "necessary" and "exclusive" i.e. they provide services or functions
that are necessary and are not easily accessible in any other way.

 

At that point there is I would think, the need (as a matter of "public
interest") for "an organisation who told you what protocols you could and
could not use".

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:34 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
Exceptions?)

[MG>] .

 

I can't parse this.  In terms of "Governance of the Internet", facebook.com
has exactly the same "importance" as bollow.ch.

 

Would you like it if there was an organisation who told you what protocols
you could and could not use for bollow.ch?

 

 

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/4249db1a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Fri Feb 22 12:06:46 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:06:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] HLS / Lessig on "Aaron's Laws - Law and Justice in a
 Digital Age"
Message-ID: <5127A5A6.4030700@gmail.com>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4&feature=youtu.be

*Published on 20 Feb 2013 *

Lawrence Lessig marked his appointment as Roy L. Furman Professor of Law 
and Leadership at Harvard Law School with a lecture titled "Aaron's 
Laws: Law and Justice in a Digital Age." The lecture honored the memory 
and work of Aaron Swartz, the programmer and activist who took his own 
life on Jan. 11, 2013 at the age of 26.

0:00:00 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4&feature=youtu.be#> 
Introduction
0:08:50 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4&feature=youtu.be#> 
Remarks
1:26:05 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4&feature=youtu.be#> Q&A
1:42:00 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4&feature=youtu.be#> 
Closing


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/d8bae242/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Feb 22 15:16:10 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:16:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
 do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
 Exceptions?)
In-Reply-To: <032f01ce1127$10e62cc0$32b28640$@gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhiPugpJwZkZYfH3cwZgP2OhTQ=iCn_sjFc8TPabD-xJw@mail.gmail.com> <032f01ce1127$10e62cc0$32b28640$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjL_nmk=SjwmMa55rscbx+aUYkv9DQBBiVz5ainXQ+xpw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> Ahh… How do we define "Governance of the Internet" ****
>
> ** **
>
> And there is the rub, if 20% or so of humanity (say 40-50-60% of all
> Internet users) is signed up to Facebook.com (or some equivalent numbers
> for Google.com or mPesa, or …) and .000000001 of humanity is signed up to
> bollow.ch then surely "quantity" becomes "quality"
>

I don't see how this follows.

Will you ask for differenet rules for FB vs bollow.ch?  What about in
registering the domain name, different rules?



> and particularly if activities are undertaken using those
> applications/built on those platforms that are "necessary" and "exclusive"
> i.e. they provide services or functions that are necessary and are not
> easily accessible in any other way.
>


I have yet to find anything on FB that is "necessary".

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> At that point there is I would think, the need (as a matter of "public
> interest") for "*an organisation who told you what protocols you could
> and could not use"…*
>


At that point, there would need to be a discussion why these "necessary
services are on FB and not in the public domain.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/419574c5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb 22 15:48:45 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:48:45 -0800
Subject: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
 do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
 Exceptions?)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjL_nmk=SjwmMa55rscbx+aUYkv9DQBBiVz5ainXQ+xpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhiPugpJwZkZYfH3cwZgP2OhTQ=iCn_sjFc8TPabD-xJw@mail.gmail.com> <032f01ce1127$10e62cc0$32b28640$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjL_nmk=SjwmMa55rscbx+aUYkv9DQBBiVz5ainXQ+xpw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <046901ce113e$0a83fdf0$1f8bf9d0$@gmail.com>

Hi,

 

From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:16 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
Exceptions?)

 

 

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:04 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

Ahh. How do we define "Governance of the Internet" 

 

And there is the rub, if 20% or so of humanity (say 40-50-60% of all
Internet users) is signed up to Facebook.com (or some equivalent numbers for
Google.com or mPesa, or .) and .000000001 of humanity is signed up to
bollow.ch then surely "quantity" becomes "quality"

 

I don't see how this follows.

 

Will you ask for differenet rules for FB vs bollow.ch?

[MG>] depends on which rules we are talking about and in what contexts. 

 

 

What about in registering the domain name, different rules?

[MG>] probably not as one can't really predict which domain will become a FB
and which a bollow.ch

 

and particularly if activities are undertaken using those applications/built
on those platforms that are "necessary" and "exclusive" i.e. they provide
services or functions that are necessary and are not easily accessible in
any other way.

 

I have yet to find anything on FB that is "necessary".

[MG>] I think the example that is generally used is that Ghana first
announced its election results on FB. what consequences followed from that
(if any) I'm not sure of, but one could imagine how that kind of practice
would lead to services/functions that in some contexts are "necessary".  If
mPesa is providing the only "banking" service available for vast numbers of
the population of Kenya or wherever, presumably the service can be seen as a
"necessary" one and thus subject to some sort of regulation.

 

At that point there is I would think, the need (as a matter of "public
interest") for "an organisation who told you what protocols you could and
could not use".

 

 

At that point, there would need to be a discussion why these "necessary
services are on FB and not in the public domain.

[MG>] that's a good question and one worth addressing. the idea of a global
public domain email service has been mooted from time to time (and I believe
something of that sort was established in Sweden through the postal service.
As you well know, there are pro's and con's for this. My point though is to
simply say that these kinds of matters (and including "private services")
need to be examined through a public interest lens.

 

M

 

 

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/89bf987c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Feb 22 16:51:09 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:51:09 -0500
Subject: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
 do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
 Exceptions?)
In-Reply-To: <046901ce113e$0a83fdf0$1f8bf9d0$@gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhiPugpJwZkZYfH3cwZgP2OhTQ=iCn_sjFc8TPabD-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <032f01ce1127$10e62cc0$32b28640$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjL_nmk=SjwmMa55rscbx+aUYkv9DQBBiVz5ainXQ+xpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <046901ce113e$0a83fdf0$1f8bf9d0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxiGcECiuMnz5X=+2QvOwy_7jFEt06eXVu2998zQi1S0xA@mail.gmail.com>

Michael,

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:48 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

<snip>

I have yet to find anything on FB that is "necessary".****
>
> *[MG>] I think the example that is generally used is that Ghana first
> announced its election results on FB… what consequences followed from that
> (if any) I'm not sure of, but one could imagine how that kind of practice
> would lead to services/functions that in some contexts are "necessary". *
>

I disagree.  Posting results on FB and only FB would be a disservice to the
citizenry.  As one of many outlets, I think it is fine.

Posting the results on the Internet (on the Election Commission website or
official government website) is useful, but that doesn't make a case for
global regulation of the network by all Electoral Commissions.


> * If mPesa is providing the only *
>

mPesa is one of many, it's not the only.


> *"banking" service available for vast numbers of the population of Kenya
> or wherever, presumably the service can be seen as a "necessary" one and
> thus subject to some sort of regulation.*
>

mPesa and other mobile money services are heavily regulated in KE and
elsewhere in Africa.  I have no quibble with this at all.  I just don't
think we need a CIRP (or something like it) to regulate activity on the
Internet.

<snip>

At that point, there would need to be a discussion why these "necessary
services are on FB and not in the public domain.

> *[MG>] that's a good question and one worth addressing… the idea of a
> global public domain email service has been mooted from time to time (and I
> believe something of that sort was established in Sweden through the postal
> service… As you well know, there are pro's and con's for this… My point
> though is to simply say that these kinds of matters (and including "private
> services") need to be examined through a public interest lens.*
>

I remain unconvinced that there is need of a global CIRP-like body.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/022bca47/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Feb 22 17:14:29 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:14:29 -0800
Subject: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
 do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
 Exceptions?)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxiGcECiuMnz5X=+2QvOwy_7jFEt06eXVu2998zQi1S0xA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhiPugpJwZkZYfH3cwZgP2OhTQ=iCn_sjFc8TPabD-xJw@mail.gmail.com> <032f01ce1127$10e62cc0$32b28640$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjL_nmk=SjwmMa55rscbx+aUYkv9DQBBiVz5ainXQ+xpw@mail.gmail.com> <046901ce113e$0a83fdf0$1f8bf9d0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxiGcECiuMnz5X=+2QvOwy_7jFEt06eXVu2998zQi1S0xA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04fe01ce114a$03f65350$0be2f9f0$@gmail.com>

I didn't mention CIRP at all and quite frankly I'm not sure what you mean by
a "CIRP-like body". 

 

What I did say was that I believe there is the need to examine these matters
in the broad context of a (global) public interest. how, or what form a
response "in the public interest" might take (or for that matter who or how
that response might be determined or executed if in fact a response was
deemed necessary) I think is an open question. However, it is to my mind
precisely those kinds of issues that need to be addressed. 

 

It will be a long and winding road to get anywhere near an effective
resolution of those questions but the issues requiring some kind of response
are coming with increasing frequency and in the absence of a set of
responses based on collaboratively arrived at rules and principles we are
left with "might makes right" or "ruling by default" which of course gives
maximum power to incumbents.

 

M

 

From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:51 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
Exceptions?)

 

Michael,

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:48 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

 

<snip>

 

I have yet to find anything on FB that is "necessary".

[MG>] I think the example that is generally used is that Ghana first
announced its election results on FB. what consequences followed from that
(if any) I'm not sure of, but one could imagine how that kind of practice
would lead to services/functions that in some contexts are "necessary". 

 

I disagree.  Posting results on FB and only FB would be a disservice to the
citizenry.  As one of many outlets, I think it is fine.

 

Posting the results on the Internet (on the Election Commission website or
official government website) is useful, but that doesn't make a case for
global regulation of the network by all Electoral Commissions.

 

If mPesa is providing the only 

 

mPesa is one of many, it's not the only.

 

"banking" service available for vast numbers of the population of Kenya or
wherever, presumably the service can be seen as a "necessary" one and thus
subject to some sort of regulation.

 

mPesa and other mobile money services are heavily regulated in KE and
elsewhere in Africa.  I have no quibble with this at all.  I just don't
think we need a CIRP (or something like it) to regulate activity on the
Internet.

 

<snip>

 

At that point, there would need to be a discussion why these "necessary
services are on FB and not in the public domain.

[MG>] that's a good question and one worth addressing. the idea of a global
public domain email service has been mooted from time to time (and I believe
something of that sort was established in Sweden through the postal service.
As you well know, there are pro's and con's for this. My point though is to
simply say that these kinds of matters (and including "private services")
need to be examined through a public interest lens.

 

I remain unconvinced that there is need of a global CIRP-like body.

 

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130222/61042adf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Feb 22 19:02:23 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 05:32:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
 do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
 Exceptions?)
In-Reply-To: <04fe01ce114a$03f65350$0be2f9f0$@gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhiPugpJwZkZYfH3cwZgP2OhTQ=iCn_sjFc8TPabD-xJw@mail.gmail.com> <032f01ce1127$10e62cc0$32b28640$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjL_nmk=SjwmMa55rscbx+aUYkv9DQBBiVz5ainXQ+xpw@mail.gmail.com> <046901ce113e$0a83fdf0$1f8bf9d0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxiGcECiuMnz5X=+2QvOwy_7jFEt06eXVu2998zQi1S0xA@mail.gmail.com> <04fe01ce114a$03f65350$0be2f9f0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <78F69321-E30F-4EFC-8DB7-4B0A69F7118C@hserus.net>

It simply remains to be seen whether there IS a global public interest position and avoid a community level groupthink that deludes us into believing that we are the arbiters of said interest.

There is no shortage of processes where consensus is achieved in a particular community and when the (globally relevant) decision is out, there are loud protests from other stakeholder groups with diametrically opposite views.

--srs (iPad)

On 23-Feb-2013, at 3:44, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I didn't mention CIRP at all and quite frankly I'm not sure what you mean by a "CIRP-like body"…
>  
> What I did say was that I believe there is the need to examine these matters in the broad context of a (global) public interest… how, or what form a response "in the public interest" might take (or for that matter who or how that response might be determined or executed if in fact a response was deemed necessary) I think is an open question. However, it is to my mind precisely those kinds of issues that need to be addressed.
>  
> It will be a long and winding road to get anywhere near an effective resolution of those questions but the issues requiring some kind of response are coming with increasing frequency and in the absence of a set of responses based on collaboratively arrived at rules and principles we are left with "might makes right" or "ruling by default" which of course gives maximum power to incumbents.
>  
> M
>  
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:51 PM
> To: michael gurstein
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
> Subject: Re: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and Exceptions?)
>  
> Michael,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:48 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
> <snip>
>  
> I have yet to find anything on FB that is "necessary".
> [MG>] I think the example that is generally used is that Ghana first announced its election results on FB… what consequences followed from that (if any) I'm not sure of, but one could imagine how that kind of practice would lead to services/functions that in some contexts are "necessary". 
>  
> I disagree.  Posting results on FB and only FB would be a disservice to the citizenry.  As one of many outlets, I think it is fine.
>  
> Posting the results on the Internet (on the Election Commission website or official government website) is useful, but that doesn't make a case for global regulation of the network by all Electoral Commissions.
>  
> If mPesa is providing the only
>  
> mPesa is one of many, it's not the only.
>  
> "banking" service available for vast numbers of the population of Kenya or wherever, presumably the service can be seen as a "necessary" one and thus subject to some sort of regulation.
>  
> mPesa and other mobile money services are heavily regulated in KE and elsewhere in Africa.  I have no quibble with this at all.  I just don't think we need a CIRP (or something like it) to regulate activity on the Internet.
>  
> <snip>
>  
> At that point, there would need to be a discussion why these "necessary services are on FB and not in the public domain.
> [MG>] that's a good question and one worth addressing… the idea of a global public domain email service has been mooted from time to time (and I believe something of that sort was established in Sweden through the postal service… As you well know, there are pro's and con's for this… My point though is to simply say that these kinds of matters (and including "private services") need to be examined through a public interest lens.
>  
> I remain unconvinced that there is need of a global CIRP-like body.
>  
> -- 
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130223/0e0b73aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jcurran at istaff.org  Fri Feb 22 20:12:06 2013
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:12:06 +0800
Subject: [governance] FYI - Open Access movement win - USG Federally-funded
 research results are to be made available publicly
Message-ID: <343E4999-5CE2-4393-80C5-FAFA7A89C24D@istaff.org>

<http://mashable.com/2013/02/22/white-house-public-access-directive/>

"The directive is seen as a watershed moment after a ten-year-long campaign that has involved a considerable amount of associations and activists, including Aaron Swartz, who was accused of downloading JSTOR articles, an action that was directly influenced by the open access ethos. "

FYI,
/John
 
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Sat Feb 23 03:04:48 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:04:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] Bradley Manning supporters stage UK events
Message-ID: <51287820.9060203@gmail.com>

[And some UN reports indicate that he has been subject to cruel and 
inhumane treatment...]

23 February 2013 Last updated at 03:43 GMT


  Bradley Manning supporters stage UK events

Pte Bradley Manning is escorted by military police as he departs the 
courtroom at Fort Meade, Maryland Pte Mannings's trial is due to start 
next month
the UK, and the rest of the world, to mark the 1,000th day spent in 
prison by alleged Wikileaks source Bradley Manning.

Pte Manning, 25, was detained in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of 
passing secret files to the website.

The US Army analyst faces 22 charges, including aiding the enemy. If 
convicted, he could be jailed for life.

A series of events will be held across the US and Europe, including in 
London, Edinburgh, Yorkshire and Cardiff.

"There has never been a more important time to broadcast our message of 
support for exposing war crimes, international justice, and people's 
right to know what the government does in our name," said a spokesman 
for US-based campaign group.

Whistle-blowing Wikileaks became known for publishing sensitive material 
from governments and other high-profile organisations, including 
thousands of US embassy cables.

Its founder Julian Assange remains at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, 
where he took refuge last June.

Mr Assange, 41, faces extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims - 
allegations he denies.

He fears onward extradition to the US to face charges over the leaked files.

'Tragic hero'

Events are planned across the UK 
<http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/on-february-23-international-protests-of-bradley-mannings-1000th-day-in-jail-without-trial> 
on Saturday, including a solidarity vigil in Birmingham and a picket at 
the US embassy in London, to mark 1,000 days of Pte Manning's imprisonment.

His trial is expected to start on 6 March.

Last month, a military judge at a pre-trial hearing in Fort Meade, 
Maryland, ruled Pte Manning would have 112 days taken off his sentence 
if he is convicted. The judge said Pte Manning had suffered illegal 
punishment during his nine-month detention following his arrest.

Pte Manning wants the charges dropped because of his ordeal.

He has offered to take responsibility for leaking more than 250,000 
diplomatic cables and classified files to Wikileaks - but the US 
government is still planning to prosecute him on all 22 charges.

New York civil rights lawyer Chase Madar, who has written a book about 
Pte Manning, said he believed he was a "tragic hero".

"There is still a perception that the US is at risk from military leaks 
- but I believe what he did was a good thing, both for the United States 
and for the rest of the world," he said.

"The documents leaked represented less than 1% of what Washington 
classified in the whole of 2011."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130223/408cd70d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: _66032134_016948638.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13070 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130223/408cd70d/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Sat Feb 23 07:59:59 2013
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:59:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for nominations: CSTD WG on enhanced
 cooperation
In-Reply-To: <5127952D.6060807@apc.org>
References: <51267C46.9010609@apc.org> <CAPcSPKX5ydo52mz0KvJ2CcqYnjWVWjhTWdsHDKm7BZ-vtMjkbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5127952D.6060807@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAHj_20heHrcKhJgmSiDkf+foA4bNr2aFAuzM-O0s_-vPDfB5zw@mail.gmail.com>

excuse me Anriette for the mistake from my inattention.

Baudouin

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

Téléphone mobile:+243998983491
email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com
skype                 : b.schombe
blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr
Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net




2013/2/22 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>

>  Thanks Baudouin
>
> People can send these to me and Emilar at apc.org off list to keep traffic down
> in this list, and also to not cause confusion with the IGC nomcom process.
>
> Anriette
>
>  On 22/02/2013 17:23, Baudouin Schombe wrote:
>
> 1. Your name, email and contact number
>
>      -SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
>
>      -b.schombe at gmail.com
>
>      -+243998983491/+243813684512
>
>
>
> 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are
> affiliated
> to
>
>     -CENTRE AFRICAIN D�ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>
>
> 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your job
> title)
>
>       -ICT CONSULTANT
>
>
> 3. Your country of residence
>
>         -DR CONGO
>
>
> 4. Your nationality and your gender
>
>         -DR CONGO
>
>
> 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
> policy processes that involve cooperation between governments, and also
> between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups? Note that
> people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
> a lot to contribute.
>
>  *CAFEC it is a member of Least Development Country Watch (LDCwatch) at
> national level. LDC Watch is a member of Social Watch International. The
> CAFEC is also part of the ICT cluster and Development program for poverty
> reduction in the DRC. CAFEC plays the leading role in the national
> activities on the process of implementation of the National and IGF in the
> organization of subregional and regional forum of Internet governance in
> the DRC.*
>
> *It is also planned a seminar workshop for actors multiparty DRC on
> Internet governance.*
>
>
> 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
> the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?\
>
> *I am personally a member of the Executive Secretariat of the IGF Central
> Africa, I received a certified training DiploFoundation on Internet
> governance. The CAFEC has been accredited since 2003 at the World Summit on
> the Information Society since 2008 and UNCTAD.*
>
> *I participated actively in the Global Caucus civil society on Internet
> governance.*
>
> *-at the local level, I bring my expertise to the department in charge of
> ICT for the achievement of the national IGF.
> *
> 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
> and participate in these meetings and in WG activity? Meetings will mostly
> be in Geneva.
>
> *I still have as usual to attend all meetings regardless of the place or
> location.*
>
> * *
>
>
>
>  Baudouin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/2/21 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> <anriette at apc.org>
>
>  Dear colleagues
>
> *Call for nominees from civil society to join the CSTD Working Group on
> Enhanced Cooperation*
>
> I have been asked by Mr. Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chairperson of the
> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to act as
> the focal point for gathering nominations for the 5 civil society
> positions on the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I realise
> that the IGC Nomcom has already started the process of gathering
> nominations and will definitely include the names they propose in the
> pool I compile along with an explanation of how they were selected.
>
> Please pass this invitation around to other civil society organisations
> or networks you work with.
>
> *Background*
>
> The formation of such a working group (WG) was first discussed at the
> 15th session of the CSTD in May 2012. The request to the Chairperson to
> convene the group was confirmed in resolution 67/195 of the 67th session
> of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
> http://www.un.org/ga/search/**view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/**195<http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/195> <http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/195>
>
>
> The task of the WG will bes to examine the "mandate of the World Summit
> on the Information Society regarding enhanced cooperation as contained
> in the Tunis Agenda, through seeking, compiling and reviewing inputs
> from all Member States and all other stakeholders, and to make
> recommendations on how to fully implement this mandate". The working
> group has to report to the Commission at its 17th session in 2014 as an
> input to the overall review of the outcomes of the WSIS. I am not in a
> position to say how many times the WG will meet, but assume it is likely
> to meet at least twice before submitting its report in May 2014.
>
> *Role of the civil society focal point*
>
> The role of the focal point for civil society is to assist the CSTD
> Chair in reaching out to interested parties among civil society who
> would like to be considered for participation in the group. The Chair of
> the CSTD will decide on and announce the final composition of the
> Working Group.
>
> *Composition of the WG*
>
> The WG will be made up of representatives from 22 Member States (four
> per regional group plus the two that have hosted the World Summit on the
> Information Society) and as invitees, five representatives each from (a)
> the private sector, (b) civil society, (c) the technical and academic
> communities and (d) intergovernmental and international organizations.
>
> *Process for nominations*
>
> If you would like to nominate yourself, or another individual, please
> send an email to me (anriette at apc.org) copying Emilar Vushe
> (emilar at apc.org
> ).
>
> Please include:
>
> 1. Your name, email and contact number
> 2. The civil  society entities (network or organisations) that you are
> affiliated to
> 3. The capacity of this affiliation if applicable (e.g. "member" or your
> job title)
> 3. Your country of residence
> 4. Your nationality and your gender
>
> Could you also please answer the following questions to assist the CSTD
> chair in making the final selection:
>
> 5.What experience and expertise do you have in public-interest oriented
> policy processes that involve cooperation between governments, and also
> between governments and non-governmental stakeholder groups? Note that
> people from sectors other than internet/ICTs are welcome and could have
> a lot to contribute.
>
> 6. What experience and expertise do you have in enhanced cooperation in
> the context of the WSIS process and internet governance in general?
>
> 7. Are you able to commit to the time needed to travel to WG meetings
> and participate in these meetings and in WG activity? Meetings will mostly
> be in Geneva.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions. I will try to answer them
> to the best of my ability.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Anriette Esterhuysen
>
> --
> ------------------------------**------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130223/32b75186/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Feb 23 13:03:27 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:03:27 -0500
Subject: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
 do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
 Exceptions?)
In-Reply-To: <04fe01ce114a$03f65350$0be2f9f0$@gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACAaNxhiPugpJwZkZYfH3cwZgP2OhTQ=iCn_sjFc8TPabD-xJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <032f01ce1127$10e62cc0$32b28640$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjL_nmk=SjwmMa55rscbx+aUYkv9DQBBiVz5ainXQ+xpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <046901ce113e$0a83fdf0$1f8bf9d0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxiGcECiuMnz5X=+2QvOwy_7jFEt06eXVu2998zQi1S0xA@mail.gmail.com>
 <04fe01ce114a$03f65350$0be2f9f0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxjuipuit7Gn6KZmcZCEQEsrPoHBRthWkfWD0isSvQ9idA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> I didn't mention CIRP at all and quite frankly I'm not sure what you mean
> by a "CIRP-like body"…
>

well if you are going to make FB a "Human Right", that sort of implies that
all nations have a duty to regulate FB, no?

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/is-facebook-a-human-right-egypt-and-tunisia-transform-social-media/

****
>
> ** **
>
> What I did say was that I believe there is the need to examine these
> matters in the broad context of a (global) public interest… how, or what
> form a response "in the public interest" might take (or for that matter who
> or how that response might be determined or executed if in fact a response
> was deemed necessary) I think is an open question. However, it is to my
> mind precisely those kinds of issues that need to be addressed. ****
>
> ** **
>
> It will be a long and winding road to get anywhere near an effective
> resolution of those questions but the issues requiring some kind of
> response are coming with increasing frequency
>


I don't think we would agree on what needs a response and what doesn't!


> and in the absence of a set of responses based on collaboratively arrived
> at rules and principles
>

One example of that already happening is GNI

http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/about/index.php

There are lots of other examples as well.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130223/944e3efb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Feb 23 13:33:59 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:33:59 -0800
Subject: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
 do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
 Exceptions?)
In-Reply-To: <CACAaNxjuipuit7Gn6KZmcZCEQEsrPoHBRthWkfWD0isSvQ9idA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLCumkDouvi3=9pk0kBp768jFUA=Bw7n1uW7xTYYhK5PMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACAaNxhiPugpJwZkZYfH3cwZgP2OhTQ=iCn_sjFc8TPabD-xJw@mail.gmail.com> <032f01ce1127$10e62cc0$32b28640$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjL_nmk=SjwmMa55rscbx+aUYkv9DQBBiVz5ainXQ+xpw@mail.gmail.com> <046901ce113e$0a83fdf0$1f8bf9d0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxiGcECiuMnz5X=+2QvOwy_7jFEt06eXVu2998zQi1S0xA@mail.gmail.com> <04fe01ce114a$03f65350$0be2f9f0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxjuipuit7Gn6KZmcZCEQEsrPoHBRthWkfWD0isSvQ9idA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <095801ce11f4$63bc2490$2b346db0$@gmail.com>

Thanks McTim.

 

From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:03 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow
Subject: Re: [governance] scope of "Internet governance" (was Re: Fwd: Why
do US and EU trade negotiators hate the Berne Copyright Limitations and
Exceptions?)

 

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

I didn't mention CIRP at all and quite frankly I'm not sure what you mean by
a "CIRP-like body".

well if you are going to make FB a "Human Right", that sort of implies that
all nations have a duty to regulate FB, no?

 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/is-facebook-a-human-right-egypt-and
-tunisia-transform-social-media/

 

[MG>] Well, I was asking a (provocative but non-trivial) question and
attempting to provide a useful answer/provoke an informed discussion. I'm
afraid that your comment above is much too much of a simplification to give
any sort of reasonable response. But if you want to go through the argument
that I was making in that blogpost in some detail I'ld be delighted to do it
with you/others.(note that there already are 12 very useful
comments/critiques on that particular post.

 

What I did say was that I believe there is the need to examine these matters
in the broad context of a (global) public interest. how, or what form a
response "in the public interest" might take (or for that matter who or how
that response might be determined or executed if in fact a response was
deemed necessary) I think is an open question. However, it is to my mind
precisely those kinds of issues that need to be addressed. 

 

It will be a long and winding road to get anywhere near an effective
resolution of those questions but the issues requiring some kind of response
are coming with increasing frequency 

 

 

I don't think we would agree on what needs a response and what doesn't!

 

[MG>] Well reasonable people disagree all the time and find ways of both
compromising and living together so I don't see that as a "deal breaker.

 

and in the absence of a set of responses based on collaboratively arrived at
rules and principles

 

One example of that already happening is GNI

 

http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/about/index.php

 

[MG>] yes, that's one and there are others. as for myself I would prefer
something that came out of a rather more inclusive and broadbased process
such as is currently being discussed/embarked upon through various
frameworks and entities.

 

There are lots of other examples as well.

[MG>] indeed

 

M

 

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130223/2e938100/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pouzin at well.com  Sat Feb 23 21:40:44 2013
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 03:40:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] RIAA wants Google to be their private cop
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYpmvUY_yqOKr4O09j6onW0Te_uE9jS058Mo5w-sjtMJTw@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/02/21/googles-anti-piracy-measures-not-enough-recording-industry-says

but ..

http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/01/27/tech-industry-report-finds-entertainment-industry-thriving-despite-complaints
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130224/1e8d3a2c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From capdasiege at gmail.com  Sun Feb 24 12:35:15 2013
From: capdasiege at gmail.com (CAPDA CAPDA)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:35:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] Preparing for the IGF Open Consultation
In-Reply-To: <51268345.50907@apc.org>
References: <20130220145304.1f8a21c3@quill.bollow.ch>
	<51268345.50907@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAPm5NK5PEJpOXdeWWiyO=PqC1vi0i3wPH2ZUFbBD4QsQc6b_Sw@mail.gmail.com>

Good job Anriette

Cheer

2013/2/21 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
> Dear all
>
> Attached is the APC assessment of the 2012 IGF and recommendations for the
> 2013 IGF.
>
> We support the IRP coalition's proposals for a main theme focused on
> 'internet governance principles'.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 20/02/2013 15:53, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
>
> Dear all
>
> In regard to the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Open
> Consultation on Feb 28 in Paris:
>
> I will be there and available to represent the IGC. However I will be
> able to this only effectively to the extent that I get informed in
> advance about the viewpoints that we have in the Caucus.
>
> Of course, for the points on which we have reached consensus during
> preparation of our written contribution, that consensus will also guide
> me in everything that I will say on those points.
>
> But there may be a need to react to proposals of other stakeholder
> groups, etc, and hence there is IMO a need for additional preparation.
>
> As far as I can see, the planned synthesis is not available yet.
>
> However all the written contributions from various stakeholder
> organizations are available at
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/contributionsigf .
>
> Please post any comments you may have, that might be useful for me as
> guidance on Feb 28, here on the list.
>
> The draft agenda for the Feb 28 consultation is here:
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/February%20Consultation/February-%20Draft%20Agenda.docx
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Michel TCHONANG LINZE

Coordinateur Général

Coordonnateur Régional Afrique Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société
Civile (ACSIS)

ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC !

Forum SMSI du 13 au 17 Mai 2013 Genève Suisse
SYMPOSIUM TIC AFRIQUE du 30 juillet au 02 Août 2013 Yaoundé Cameroun.
«Face à l’enjeu de la Cybersécurité-Cybercriminalité et du phénomène
de croissance exponentielle de la téléphonie mobile, quelles solutions
pour des Villes Numériques, la Protection des Droits des Personnes et
des Entreprises ? »

CAPDA (Consortium d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le
Développement de l'Afrique)

BP : 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN

Tél. : (237) 7775-39-63 / 2212-9493/ 3340-46-49  Fax : (237) 3340-46-49

Email : capdasiege at gmail.com / forumtic2005 at yahoo.fr

Site :  www.ict-forum.org ; www.ict-africa.org ; www.tic-afrique.org

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 24 16:28:28 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:28:28 +1200
Subject: [governance] Update on NomCom [CSTD Nominee Selection]
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAorDnQoBxQ2txsoOFYHiD96t95Jba-w1qKKTG4YknFOg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

Following the previous NomCom Independent Non Voting Chair's recusal due to
conflict of interest, I am pleased to advise that Devon Blake will be
replacing Guru as NomCom Chair and has also willingly forfeited his rights
to vote to maintain neutrality as he facilitates the process to a close.

They are in the middle of deliberations and Devon will be regularly
updating the IGC on developments of the NomCom. I would like to thank the
NomCom for the work that they are doing in this time and wish them well in
their deliberations.

Kind Regards,

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130225/cf151984/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fulvio.frati at unimi.it  Mon Feb 25 06:00:25 2013
From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:00:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] IEEE 2013 Third International Workshop on Security and
 Privacy Engineering (SPE2013)
Message-ID: <00e901ce1347$50a7e7f0$f1f7b7d0$@unimi.it>

Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this Call For Paper

 

****************************************************************************
********* 

IEEE 2013 Third International Workshop on Security and Privacy Engineering
(SPE2013)

 

Part of IEEE SERVICES 2013, June 27 and July 2, 2013

Santa Clara Marriott, CA, USA (Center of Silicon Valley)

 

http://www.servicescongress.org/2013/spe.html

****************************************************************************
*********

 

Paper Submission Due Date: March 15, 2013 (regular paper 8 page, short paper
4 page)

 

Topics of interests of SPE 2013 include, but are not limited to:

 

  -Validation and verification of S&P in clouds and services

  -Applied cryptography for S&P in clouds and services

  -Governance and management of S&P in clouds and services

  -Testing of S&P in clouds and services

  -Assessment, Auditing, and Certification of S&P in clouds and services

  -Risk and legal compliance of S&P in clouds and services

  -Education and awareness of S&P in clouds and services

 

Workshop chairs

 

  - Meiko Jensen, Independent Centre for Privacy Protection
Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

  - Zhixiong Chen, Mercy College, NY, USA

  - Ernesto Damiani, Università degli studi di Milano, Italy

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130225/7cd5d601/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kichango at gmail.com  Mon Feb 25 11:09:29 2013
From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:09:29 +0000
Subject: [governance] Call for participation in the forum on "Strengthening
 e-Agriculture Strategies in ACP Countries"
Message-ID: <CACTo+v9Vgohuy2kSqSD-2nmjBy5kJMTgHGSPaJj7f_c=u4qzWg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please, feel free to pass on this announcement to colleagues who might
be interested (and there is _No Need_ to use Reply to All in case you
wanted to reply to this email.)

Within the framework of the upcoming ICT Observatory meeting relating
to agricultural and rural development to be held from 24 to 26 April
2013 in the Netherlands as well as the WSIS+10 activities pertaining
to e-agriculture, as part of the Tunis Agenda's Action Line C7 on ICT
applications and the related WSIS Forum to be organized from 13-17 May
2013 in Geneva, the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural
Cooperation, CTA, is holding a two week email discussion on
e-agriculture policies and strategies in the Africa, Caribbean and
Pacific countries, starting today.

You are cordially invited to participate in that e-agriculture
strategy forum (see below) on the e-agriculture.org platform here
http://ow.ly/hGiRn. To participate you must be a member of the
e-Agriculture Community by registering at
http://www.e-agriculture.org/user/register. After registration, follow
the link to the forum’s page and reply to the question of the day.

Once you are subscribed, you will be able to participate either by
posting from the Web platform or from your email program by following
instructions available at the link “How to activate email
notifications for this forum (instructions)” on the forum page.
Introductory notes and other resources are also available.
Please join us!

Thank you

Mawaki

---

Forum: 2013 CTA ICT OBSERVATORY “Strengthening e-Agriculture
Strategies in ACP Countries” (25 February – 8 March)


How can we strengthen e-agriculture strategies and policies (holistic
ICT strategies and policies dedicated to the agriculture sector) in
ACP* countries?

Farmers and other agricultural actors are increasingly using ICTs,
particularly mobile phones, at different stages and in all segments of
the agricultural value chain. As recommended by the United Nations,
the need to put in place strategic and holistic frameworks that guide
and support the full integration of these technologies into
agricultural activities has become crucial.

The Technical Center for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), in
collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),  is
organizing an e-Agriculture forum to start this important discussion.

The specific questions to be addressed during the debate are:

Week 1:  The concept, need and state of adoption of e-agriculture
strategies in ACP countries and beyond
1. Why are national e-agriculture strategies (also referred to as “ICT
for agriculture strategies” or “cyber-strategies for agriculture”)
needed for the agricultural sector to fully realize the benefits of
ICTs?
2. What examples of ICT strategies targeting the agricultural sector
do we have in ACP and in non-ACP countries (“ACP” stands for “Africa,
Caribbean and Pacific”)?
3. What are the key target areas and value chain segments for these
e-agriculture strategies? And Why?

Week 2: Stakeholders, challenges and lessons learned for formulating
and implementing inclusive e-agriculture strategies
4. What are the key challenges faced in formulating and implementing
these strategies/policies and what lessons learned from on-going or
past processes?
5. Stakeholder roles: What are the roles of ICT and agricultural
stakeholders in e-agriculture strategy formulation, implementation and
evaluation? How can we ensure the full participation of farmers and
other non-governmental stakeholders ? What are the role(s) of the
Ministry in charge of ICT and the one in charge of Agriculture? What
role(s) for international stakeholders?
6. What key policy recommendations can be made to support the
implementation of effective e-agriculture strategies or policies?

Subject Matter Experts from various organizations will contribute to
the discussions. A synthesis will be prepared following the debate and
a policy brief, which will take into account key initiatives,
recommendations and conclusions, will be prepared following the
organization of the ICT Observatory meeting.

Outcomes of the online forum will be used at the 2013 ICT Observatory
(to be organized by CTA from 24 to 26 April, in the Netherlands), with
the results of these activities presented at the 2013 WSIS Forum
(13-17 May, Geneva). These activities are organized by CTA in
collaboration with the FAO, the World Bank, the East African Farmers’
Federation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (Rwanda),
The Ministry of Communication (Ghana), the International Institute for
Communication and Development (IICD), the NEPAD Agency and the United
Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA/ISTD).

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de  Mon Feb 25 12:33:57 2013
From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:33:57 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] EuroDIG - Draft Programme out now for comments
In-Reply-To: <FC542A14-2A6A-400C-9210-A813B257D12E@ella.com>
References: <00b601ce10f8$6bc046a0$4340d3e0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> <FC542A14-2A6A-400C-9210-A813B257D12E@ella.com>
Message-ID: <007c01ce137e$4b3b2f20$e1b18d60$@hoferichter@freenet.de>

Yes Avri, to guarantee the reduced price they require payment in advance.

Best Sandra

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Freitag, 22. Februar 2013 15:04
An: IGC
Betreff: Re: [governance] EuroDIG - Draft Programme out now for comments


Hi,  


On 22 Feb 2013, at 07:30, sandra hoferichter wrote:

>  preliminary programme.
http://www.guarder.net/eurodig/2013/EuroDIG%2013_draft%20programme_20130220.
pdf

Thanks for the info.  Looks like a good program

> The rooms will be guaranteed until 30 April 2013 only. After this date,
room reservations will be according availability of the hotels. We recommend
to make your reservation asap, as during this time of the year many hotels
are fully booked due to other conferences in Lisbon.
> 
> 

Are these rooms set up to require up front payment?

avri


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Feb 25 23:15:47 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 05:15:47 +0100
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 in Paris: Brief report from day 1
Message-ID: <CALrvCLBYanLe3C=PUYAUQ4E_HTCKbu2zU8LQVq5vo9tzfz6i1w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all

Here is a brief report from day 1 of the WSIS+10 review conference
in Paris.

As usual, one of the highlights of such events is the
opportunity to interact in-person with people with whom you
otherwise will only communicate electronically. Those
conversations were again the highlights of the day for me.

Unsurprisingly, many of the speeches from political dignitaries
(ministers etc.) were not particularly interesting to me.

The three interventions from civil society reprentatives (Grace
Githaiga in the opening session; Michael Gurstein followed by
Anriette Esterhuysen in the "High level" session) were however
good and interesting and made important points.

Of course other speakers also made good points. One theme that
came up in many different variations is that practices and
philosophy of the Free Software and Open Source movements are
not only applicable to computer software, but also in many other
ways, for example in regard to needed changes in education to
"break the walls of the classroom".

Personally I found the remarks of Rajendra Pachauri (the chair
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) very inspiring
and energizing: He spoke on applying knowledge to address
important global problems, among which he emphasized not only
climate change but also poverty. Nothing about what he pointed
out is really new or surprising to anyone who is minimally well
informed, but I still found his intervention highly significant.
Perhaps the reason which makes me assign significance to his
words is not so much the content of what he said, but the fact
that (at least from my perspective) he did not come across as
some speaking with the voice of a politician, but as someone with
a mindset grounded in engineering. Also significant is the
prominence that the WSIS+10 organizers assigned to his brief
speech by putting it first in the "high level panel" before all
the ministers.

In summary, perhaps the main point of the day is that the
concept of knowledge societies really needs to be about the
sharing and application of knowledge in practical ways.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Feb 25 23:33:23 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:03:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 in Paris: Brief report from day 1
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLBYanLe3C=PUYAUQ4E_HTCKbu2zU8LQVq5vo9tzfz6i1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLBYanLe3C=PUYAUQ4E_HTCKbu2zU8LQVq5vo9tzfz6i1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <12D69EE2-54A9-4B7F-B39A-E9F9A0F044E0@hserus.net>

pachauri is an academic who sits on lot of government and intergovernmental committees

currenly at yale, and before that, director general of TERI, a civil society but politically wired indian think tank

--srs (iPad)

On 26-Feb-2013, at 9:45, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> Here is a brief report from day 1 of the WSIS+10 review conference
> in Paris.
> 
> As usual, one of the highlights of such events is the
> opportunity to interact in-person with people with whom you
> otherwise will only communicate electronically. Those
> conversations were again the highlights of the day for me.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, many of the speeches from political dignitaries
> (ministers etc.) were not particularly interesting to me.
> 
> The three interventions from civil society reprentatives (Grace
> Githaiga in the opening session; Michael Gurstein followed by
> Anriette Esterhuysen in the "High level" session) were however
> good and interesting and made important points.
> 
> Of course other speakers also made good points. One theme that
> came up in many different variations is that practices and
> philosophy of the Free Software and Open Source movements are
> not only applicable to computer software, but also in many other
> ways, for example in regard to needed changes in education to
> "break the walls of the classroom".
> 
> Personally I found the remarks of Rajendra Pachauri (the chair
> of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) very inspiring
> and energizing: He spoke on applying knowledge to address
> important global problems, among which he emphasized not only
> climate change but also poverty. Nothing about what he pointed
> out is really new or surprising to anyone who is minimally well
> informed, but I still found his intervention highly significant.
> Perhaps the reason which makes me assign significance to his
> words is not so much the content of what he said, but the fact
> that (at least from my perspective) he did not come across as
> some speaking with the voice of a politician, but as someone with
> a mindset grounded in engineering. Also significant is the
> prominence that the WSIS+10 organizers assigned to his brief
> speech by putting it first in the "high level panel" before all
> the ministers.
> 
> In summary, perhaps the main point of the day is that the
> concept of knowledge societies really needs to be about the
> sharing and application of knowledge in practical ways.
> 
> 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 nb at bollow.ch  Tue Feb 26 00:04:27 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:04:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 and climate change sensitive regions
Message-ID: <CALrvCLA2UvAg0jCrLxkF0m+Fu7_yujwNsH0L1EcJL4RMLMQjWA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all

Can you help me get in touch with participants in the WSIS+10
conference in Paris coming from regions which are particularly
sensitive to climate change (such as countries that will be
severely affected by rising sea levels, and countries that
will likely be affected by water insecurity, or by adverse
impacts on agricultural production and food security) ?

See below for an explanation of the reasons for this interest.

On 2/26/13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Personally I found the remarks of Rajendra Pachauri (the chair
> of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) very inspiring
> and energizing: He spoke on applying knowledge to address
> important global problems, among which he emphasized not only
> climate change but also poverty. Nothing about what he pointed
> out is really new or surprising to anyone who is minimally well
> informed, but I still found his intervention highly significant.
> Perhaps the reason which makes me assign significance to his
> words is not so much the content of what he said, but the fact
> that (at least from my perspective) he did not come across as
> someone speaking with the voice of a politician, but as someone
> with a mindset grounded in engineering. Also significant is the
> prominence that the WSIS+10 organizers assigned to his brief
> speech by putting it first in the "high level panel" before all
> the ministers.
>
> In summary, perhaps the main point of the day is that the
> concept of knowledge societies really needs to be about the
> sharing and application of knowledge in practical ways.

Another major reason why I found this inspiring is of course that
this resonates with plans that I've been pondering for quite some
time, to try launching a refocused version of the "Enhanced
Cooperation Task Force" (ECTF) that was discussed here a while
back [1]. I'm keeping the ECTF proposal alive with minor changes
more or less as-is in the hope that it may in some way be a useful
input to the CSTD Working-Group on Enhanced Cooperation. But now
that the UN system has started a probably slow process on deciding
an official meaning for the term “Enhanced Cooperation”, I really
don't want to delay application of the key ideas of that proposal
until it is clear whether the UN will eventually take action in
that direction or not.

I'm calling the branch of the proposal that I want to go forward
with without delay "Wisdom Task Force" (WisdomTF) [2], and I want
to focus it initially at least on addressing the problem of
developing effective policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions
globally, and getting governments to implement such effective
policies, together with whatever information society and development
issues that will turn out to be effectively inseparably linked with
this objective. In other words, the plan is to apply information
society techniques, inspired significantly by the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), to a policy area which is not
primarily technical. Of course, if this plan works out, it will
end up impacting also other areas of governance, including Internet
governance in the narrower sense of "governance of what makes the
Internet work".

[1] http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1
[2] http://wisdomtaskforce.org/RFB/1

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  Tue Feb 26 01:12:22 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:12:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 My Address on Behalf of Civil Society
Message-ID: <04e501ce13e8$3f108230$bd318690$@gmail.com>

Colleagues,

I'm attaching my address on behalf of Civil Society to the WSIS +10 Review
meeting, Feb. 25, 2013 in Paris.

I've also put this up on my blog at: 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=683&action=edit&message
=6&postpost=v2

http://tinyurl.com/aq6qb75

Best,

M
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS looking back and looking forward.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35328 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130226/cb3af4d5/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From fouadbajwa at gmail.com  Tue Feb 26 04:44:55 2013
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:44:55 +0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Announcement on the Interim Chair
In-Reply-To: <18F44630-9C65-43F1-B78B-319B426FECC2@unog.ch>
References: <18F44630-9C65-43F1-B78B-319B426FECC2@unog.ch>
Message-ID: <CAHuaJtMv2eRgSbyPKYrhuKZtHBiSmVuZqnCkWn=1Q5dMSb2ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear members,

The following is some encouraging news from the IGF.

Find attached a letter from Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo on
the Interim Chair that will shortly appear on the IGF website.

Markus Kummer is back!


-- 
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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DESA-13_00269.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 216242 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130226/ca35e171/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Tue Feb 26 06:17:25 2013
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:17:25 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 My Address on Behalf of Civil Society
Message-ID: <1956210763.14674.1361877445200.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m24>

 Dear Michael I can't but congratulate you warmly for your address to the WSIS + 10 Review meeting in Paris. For me it's a miliestone in CS expression in the WSIS Process and for that I thank you personnally. Adding comments to such a document is rather delicate. Therefore I'd ask you for some comprehension for the following two complementary remarks 1 - You wrote :  We should also have in mind that for poor people to be mobile users is detrimental to their vital needs (living costs) and these people represent a significant share among the 350 or so mobile users in subsaharan Africa. 2 - The market and competition driven investments in so-called Broadband Internet infrastructure deployement, leads to duplication and even multiplication of these infrastructures especially in DCs. A best illustrating example are the seven submarine cables along the African West coast ! Since the average cost of such a cable is over 600 M$ you can calculate the amount of useless investment ! For the sake of "Broadband for All" ! Anyway, your document is perfect and, once again, thanks for it and "bonne chance" to you ! I'm looking forward to meeting you during the WSIS Forum in Geneva if you are there, for continuing the debate Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack 




> Message du 26/02/13 07:13
> De : "michael gurstein" 
> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org, "IRP" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] WSIS+10 My Address on Behalf of Civil Society
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> I'm attaching my address on behalf of Civil Society to the WSIS +10 Review
> meeting, Feb. 25, 2013 in Paris.
> 
> I've also put this up on my blog at: 
> 
> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=683&action=edit&message
> =6&postpost=v2
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/aq6qb75
> 
> Best,
> 
> M
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
>
> [ WSIS looking back and looking forward.doc (47.5 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130226/30001146/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From kabani.asif at gmail.com  Tue Feb 26 06:28:53 2013
From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:28:53 +0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Announcement on the Interim Chair
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtMv2eRgSbyPKYrhuKZtHBiSmVuZqnCkWn=1Q5dMSb2ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18F44630-9C65-43F1-B78B-319B426FECC2@unog.ch>
	<CAHuaJtMv2eRgSbyPKYrhuKZtHBiSmVuZqnCkWn=1Q5dMSb2ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOzvoR1kGiu4JKVZ-pCUUvqEm46cxkya==Mbkc=m8B6JisZfLQ@mail.gmail.com>

Found,

Many thanks for sharing this important news with the community. Since
Markus is the right person for this job.

Wishing MK all the best

Sincerely

Asif Kabani

On Tuesday, 26 February 2013, Fouad Bajwa wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> The following is some encouraging news from the IGF.
>
> Find attached a letter from Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo on
> the Interim Chair that will shortly appear on the IGF website.
>
> Markus Kummer is back!
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>


-- 
*Asif Kabani, MBA*
*
*
*Connect @*
[image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [image:
Twitter]<https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>
 [image: Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani> [image:
LinkedIn]<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>

*Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130226/6c87c078/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr  Tue Feb 26 07:14:06 2013
From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:14:06 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Announcement on the Interim Chair
In-Reply-To: <CAOzvoR1kGiu4JKVZ-pCUUvqEm46cxkya==Mbkc=m8B6JisZfLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18F44630-9C65-43F1-B78B-319B426FECC2@unog.ch> <CAHuaJtMv2eRgSbyPKYrhuKZtHBiSmVuZqnCkWn=1Q5dMSb2ZDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOzvoR1kGiu4JKVZ-pCUUvqEm46cxkya==Mbkc=m8B6JisZfLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1361880846.53661.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>

Great news. 

Wishing full success to Markus. 

 
NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY


ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT
Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président
www.rtcb.bi


Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général
www.bytc.bi


Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza
Tel : +257 79 981459


________________________________
 De : Kabani <kabani.asif at gmail.com>
À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> 
Envoyé le : Mardi 26 février 2013 13h28
Objet : Re: [governance] Fwd: Announcement on the Interim Chair
 

Found,

Many thanks for sharing this important news with the community. Since Markus is the right person for this job.

Wishing MK all the best

Sincerely
Asif Kabani


On Tuesday, 26 February 2013, Fouad Bajwa  wrote:

Dear members,
>
>The following is some encouraging news from the IGF.
>
>Find attached a letter from Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo on
>the Interim Chair that will shortly appear on the IGF website.
>
>Markus Kummer is back!
>
>
>--
>Regards.
>--------------------------
>Fouad Bajwa
>ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
>My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>

-- 

Asif Kabani, MBA

Connect @
    
Before you print - Think about the ENVIRONMENT


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130226/8d39c2ba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org  Tue Feb 26 08:51:07 2013
From: ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org (HASSAN Ayesha)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:51:07 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Announcement on the Interim Chair
In-Reply-To: <1361880846.53661.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
References: <18F44630-9C65-43F1-B78B-319B426FECC2@unog.ch>
 <CAHuaJtMv2eRgSbyPKYrhuKZtHBiSmVuZqnCkWn=1Q5dMSb2ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOzvoR1kGiu4JKVZ-pCUUvqEm46cxkya==Mbkc=m8B6JisZfLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1361880846.53661.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA048FA9D05@IVORITE.icchq.org>

Congratulations to Markus, and Chengetai thanks for your efforts to ensure this announcement came in time for the February IGF consultation and MAG meetings!

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA
Sent: mardi 26 février 2013 13:14
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Announcement on the Interim Chair

Great news.
Wishing full success to Markus.

NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY
ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT
Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président
www.rtcb.bi<http://www.rtcb.bi>

Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général
www.bytc.bi<http://www.bytc.bi>


Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza
Tel : +257 79 981459
________________________________
De : Kabani <kabani.asif at gmail.com>
À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mardi 26 février 2013 13h28
Objet : Re: [governance] Fwd: Announcement on the Interim Chair

Found,

Many thanks for sharing this important news with the community. Since Markus is the right person for this job.

Wishing MK all the best

Sincerely

Asif Kabani

On Tuesday, 26 February 2013, Fouad Bajwa wrote:
Dear members,

The following is some encouraging news from the IGF.

Find attached a letter from Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo on
the Interim Chair that will shortly appear on the IGF website.

Markus Kummer is back!


--
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa


--
Asif Kabani, MBA

Connect @
[Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/kabani.asif> [Twitter] <https://twitter.com/Kabaniasif>  [Youtube] <http://www.youtube.com/user/asifkabani>  [LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kabani>
Before you print - Think about the ENVIRONMENT



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130226/591be584/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 26 09:08:29 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:08:29 -0800
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Announcement on the Interim Chair
In-Reply-To: <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA048FA9D05@IVORITE.icchq.org>
References: <18F44630-9C65-43F1-B78B-319B426FECC2@unog.ch>
 <CAHuaJtMv2eRgSbyPKYrhuKZtHBiSmVuZqnCkWn=1Q5dMSb2ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOzvoR1kGiu4JKVZ-pCUUvqEm46cxkya==Mbkc=m8B6JisZfLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1361880846.53661.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
 <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA048FA9D05@IVORITE.icchq.org>
Message-ID: <20130226140829.GB3923@hserus.net>

HASSAN Ayesha [26/02/13 13:51 +0000]:
>Congratulations to Markus, and Chengetai thanks for your efforts to ensure
>this announcement came in time for the February IGF consultation and MAG
>meetings!

Likewise, congratulations!

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 26 09:10:15 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:10:15 +1200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Announcement on the Interim Chair
In-Reply-To: <20130226140829.GB3923@hserus.net>
References: <18F44630-9C65-43F1-B78B-319B426FECC2@unog.ch>
	<CAHuaJtMv2eRgSbyPKYrhuKZtHBiSmVuZqnCkWn=1Q5dMSb2ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOzvoR1kGiu4JKVZ-pCUUvqEm46cxkya==Mbkc=m8B6JisZfLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1361880846.53661.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>
	<1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA048FA9D05@IVORITE.icchq.org>
	<20130226140829.GB3923@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBd+DiPFx6Nqf1CN2DYOnpkhpzcre34PbBYRA+vHyyA5A@mail.gmail.com>

This is really excellent news :)

Congratulations Markus!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130227/0b76a982/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Tue Feb 26 10:10:35 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 03:10:35 +1200
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 and climate change sensitive regions
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLA2UvAg0jCrLxkF0m+Fu7_yujwNsH0L1EcJL4RMLMQjWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLA2UvAg0jCrLxkF0m+Fu7_yujwNsH0L1EcJL4RMLMQjWA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiBCrF21iO3r_aYNSjZZUk9LcVUzbvfZtEbKidu21efPhA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Norbert,

Comments are inline:

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Dear all
>
> Can you help me get in touch with participants in the WSIS+10
> conference in Paris coming from regions which are particularly
> sensitive to climate change (such as countries that will be
> severely affected by rising sea levels, and countries that
> will likely be affected by water insecurity, or by adverse
> impacts on agricultural production and food security) ?
>

[ST]The Pacific is affected by rising sea levels particularly countries
that are low lying atolls such as Tuvalu (owner of .tv) and Kiribati (.ki).
There are other parts of the Pacific where rising sea levels are felt but
these too are most pronounced and in one of the country, the President had
several years ago initiated an evacuation plan.

As for people you can get in touch with from the Pacific who are there:


   - Abel Caine is with UNESCO and is based in Paris but is originally from
   Fiji
   - Tevi from Samoa is CEO of an ISP in Samoa who is well versed with
   Pacific issues and can speak about the impact of climate change in the
   region;

(I will look for their email addresses and email them to you offlist)

I would also look for someone from Bangladesh as I remember seeing the
exhibition on the impact of climate change in their country last year in D.C

>
> See below for an explanation of the reasons for this interest.
>
> On 2/26/13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > Personally I found the remarks of Rajendra Pachauri (the chair
> > of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) very inspiring
> > and energizing: He spoke on applying knowledge to address
> > important global problems, among which he emphasized not only
> > climate change but also poverty. Nothing about what he pointed
> > out is really new or surprising to anyone who is minimally well
> > informed, but I still found his intervention highly significant.
> > Perhaps the reason which makes me assign significance to his
> > words is not so much the content of what he said, but the fact
> > that (at least from my perspective) he did not come across as
> > someone speaking with the voice of a politician, but as someone
> > with a mindset grounded in engineering. Also significant is the
> > prominence that the WSIS+10 organizers assigned to his brief
> > speech by putting it first in the "high level panel" before all
> > the ministers.
> >
> > In summary, perhaps the main point of the day is that the
> > concept of knowledge societies really needs to be about the
> > sharing and application of knowledge in practical ways.
>
> Another major reason why I found this inspiring is of course that
> this resonates with plans that I've been pondering for quite some
> time, to try launching a refocused version of the "Enhanced
> Cooperation Task Force" (ECTF) that was discussed here a while
> back [1]. I'm keeping the ECTF proposal alive with minor changes
> more or less as-is in the hope that it may in some way be a useful
> input to the CSTD Working-Group on Enhanced Cooperation. But now
> that the UN system has started a probably slow process on deciding
> an official meaning for the term “Enhanced Cooperation”, I really
> don't want to delay application of the key ideas of that proposal
> until it is clear whether the UN will eventually take action in
> that direction or not.
>
> I'm calling the branch of the proposal that I want to go forward
> with without delay "Wisdom Task Force" (WisdomTF) [2], and I want
> to focus it initially at least on addressing the problem of
> developing effective policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions
> globally, and getting governments to implement such effective
> policies, together with whatever information society and development
> issues that will turn out to be effectively inseparably linked with
> this objective. In other words, the plan is to apply information
> society techniques, inspired significantly by the Internet
> Engineering Task Force (IETF), to a policy area which is not
> primarily technical. Of course, if this plan works out, it will
> end up impacting also other areas of governance, including Internet
> governance in the narrower sense of "governance of what makes the
> Internet work".
>
> [1] http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1
> [2] http://wisdomtaskforce.org/RFB/1
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130227/fd0306f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com  Tue Feb 26 10:16:58 2013
From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:16:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Announcement on the Interim Chair
In-Reply-To: <CAHuaJtMv2eRgSbyPKYrhuKZtHBiSmVuZqnCkWn=1Q5dMSb2ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18F44630-9C65-43F1-B78B-319B426FECC2@unog.ch>
	<CAHuaJtMv2eRgSbyPKYrhuKZtHBiSmVuZqnCkWn=1Q5dMSb2ZDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPcSPKVK-FRD+SgDhc7nR617J6=o_1Pdko2xvGuN88hNc7GoEQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Bajwa ,

thank you for sharing this very important information. Mr. Kummer can
be reassured that our support will be flawless.
It is also a lesson that we need to capitalize. Among us, there are
Kummer and at any time of life, can be used to their expertise proves.

Congratulations to Mr Kummer

Baudouin

2013/2/26, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>:
> Dear members,
>
> The following is some encouraging news from the IGF.
>
> Find attached a letter from Under-Secretary-General Mr. Wu Hongbo on
> the Interim Chair that will shortly appear on the IGF website.
>
> Markus Kummer is back!
>
>
> --
> Regards.
> --------------------------
> Fouad Bajwa
> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/
ACADEMIE DES TIC
At-Large Member
NCSG Member

email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com
         Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net
tél:+243998983491
skype:b.schombe
wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net
blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to 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 Feb 26 10:35:24 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:05:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 and climate change sensitive regions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBCrF21iO3r_aYNSjZZUk9LcVUzbvfZtEbKidu21efPhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLA2UvAg0jCrLxkF0m+Fu7_yujwNsH0L1EcJL4RMLMQjWA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJwbTiBCrF21iO3r_aYNSjZZUk9LcVUzbvfZtEbKidu21efPhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E943D662-14BA-4625-90C7-4B2B9D2C3C6F@hserus.net>

The maldives too - though with a rather nasty struggle going on about their presidency I doubt they have the time or inclination to attend UN conferences

--srs (iPad)

On 26-Feb-2013, at 20:40, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Norbert,
> 
> Comments are inline:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> Dear all
>> 
>> Can you help me get in touch with participants in the WSIS+10
>> conference in Paris coming from regions which are particularly
>> sensitive to climate change (such as countries that will be
>> severely affected by rising sea levels, and countries that
>> will likely be affected by water insecurity, or by adverse
>> impacts on agricultural production and food security) ?
> 
> [ST]The Pacific is affected by rising sea levels particularly countries that are low lying atolls such as Tuvalu (owner of .tv) and Kiribati (.ki). There are other parts of the Pacific where rising sea levels are felt but these too are most pronounced and in one of the country, the President had several years ago initiated an evacuation plan.
> 
> As for people you can get in touch with from the Pacific who are there:
> 
> Abel Caine is with UNESCO and is based in Paris but is originally from Fiji
> Tevi from Samoa is CEO of an ISP in Samoa who is well versed with Pacific issues and can speak about the impact of climate change in the region;
> (I will look for their email addresses and email them to you offlist)
> 
> I would also look for someone from Bangladesh as I remember seeing the exhibition on the impact of climate change in their country last year in D.C
>> 
>> See below for an explanation of the reasons for this interest.
>> 
>> On 2/26/13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> > Personally I found the remarks of Rajendra Pachauri (the chair
>> > of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) very inspiring
>> > and energizing: He spoke on applying knowledge to address
>> > important global problems, among which he emphasized not only
>> > climate change but also poverty. Nothing about what he pointed
>> > out is really new or surprising to anyone who is minimally well
>> > informed, but I still found his intervention highly significant.
>> > Perhaps the reason which makes me assign significance to his
>> > words is not so much the content of what he said, but the fact
>> > that (at least from my perspective) he did not come across as
>> > someone speaking with the voice of a politician, but as someone
>> > with a mindset grounded in engineering. Also significant is the
>> > prominence that the WSIS+10 organizers assigned to his brief
>> > speech by putting it first in the "high level panel" before all
>> > the ministers.
>> >
>> > In summary, perhaps the main point of the day is that the
>> > concept of knowledge societies really needs to be about the
>> > sharing and application of knowledge in practical ways.
>> 
>> Another major reason why I found this inspiring is of course that
>> this resonates with plans that I've been pondering for quite some
>> time, to try launching a refocused version of the "Enhanced
>> Cooperation Task Force" (ECTF) that was discussed here a while
>> back [1]. I'm keeping the ECTF proposal alive with minor changes
>> more or less as-is in the hope that it may in some way be a useful
>> input to the CSTD Working-Group on Enhanced Cooperation. But now
>> that the UN system has started a probably slow process on deciding
>> an official meaning for the term “Enhanced Cooperation”, I really
>> don't want to delay application of the key ideas of that proposal
>> until it is clear whether the UN will eventually take action in
>> that direction or not.
>> 
>> I'm calling the branch of the proposal that I want to go forward
>> with without delay "Wisdom Task Force" (WisdomTF) [2], and I want
>> to focus it initially at least on addressing the problem of
>> developing effective policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions
>> globally, and getting governments to implement such effective
>> policies, together with whatever information society and development
>> issues that will turn out to be effectively inseparably linked with
>> this objective. In other words, the plan is to apply information
>> society techniques, inspired significantly by the Internet
>> Engineering Task Force (IETF), to a policy area which is not
>> primarily technical. Of course, if this plan works out, it will
>> end up impacting also other areas of governance, including Internet
>> governance in the narrower sense of "governance of what makes the
>> Internet work".
>> 
>> [1] http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1
>> [2] http://wisdomtaskforce.org/RFB/1
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
> 
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
> 
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130226/63f60599/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From caribe at entropia.blog.br  Tue Feb 26 11:03:52 2013
From: caribe at entropia.blog.br (Joao Carlos Caribe)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:03:52 -0300
Subject: [governance] Social Big Brother
Message-ID: <BF6FFAC8-8DD1-4040-B452-7F82E376BF23@entropia.blog.br>

On my remote participation on WSIS panel "Current and emerging ethical and societal challenges of the information society" I did this intervention on Q&A panel after my speech and wanna to discuss here on the "lair of the wolf":

Thinking about the ethical when we face the social network dilema from the point of view of the corporation behind this, we just realize that all data we put on the social network are public for anyone we can choose. But what about the managers that can see our "invisible" data, and mine that to "offer content taylored for us"? We are on the real one reality show everytime on the social networks from this behind the doors audience.




There was two important questions here: 

1) Offering us the "taylored" content they put us behind the bubble filter, that can change our peception about the context. 

2) They can mine and compare our data, behavior, relationship and know more about us than ourself. Can you imagine this in one scenario where the "cyberwar" paranoia are groing fast? 




--
João Carlos Caribé
Publicitário e Consultor de mídias sociais
http://entropia.blog.br 
caribe at entropia.blog.br
twitter @caribe / skype joaocaribe 
(21) 8761 1967










-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Tue Feb 26 11:20:59 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:20:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>

Should the government intervene in this market?

http://keionline.org/node/1663

The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for compulsory licenses on
thousands of "standards-essential" patents

26. February 2013

On January 8, 2013, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued a joint statement on
"remedies for standards-essential patents subject to voluntary F/RAND
commitments. (Copy of statement here). The statement was directed to
the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) which
administers Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC 1337. Unfair
practices in import trade, see:
http://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/), and it has the practical
effect of introducing a policy of compulsory licenses for thousands of
standards relevant patents.

DOJ and PTO are responding to growing criticism of the patent system
as it relates to mobile computing devices and other technologies where
product developers find it difficult if not impossible to obtain
voluntary licenses on reasonable terms to the large number of patents
covering various aspects of the product. The decision is important for
four reasons.

(1) A very large number of patents are impacted by the policy,
arguable making it the largest compulsory license decision in history.

(2) DOJ and PTO invoked the sections of U.S. law that allow
infringement of a patent when the ITC considers the "effect of such
exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions
in the United States economy, the production of like or directly
competitive articles in the United States, and United States
consumers."

(3) High patent royalties are seen has a potential harm to consumers.

(4) The policy operates outside of Article 31 of the TRIPS, instead
relying upon the considerable flexibility under Article 44 of the
TRIPS Agreement, which allows WTO members to limit the availability of
injunctions when royalty payments or other compensation or
remuneration is available to patent holders.

The policy now being implemented at the ITC is to make it very
difficult for patent owners to obtain injunctions to stop infringement
of valid patents in cases where the patent is subject to a policy of
licensing on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. And, when
parties cannot reach an agreement on license terms, the ITC or the
courts may step in and set royalties. By making it much more difficult
for a patent holder to obtain an injunction, the bargaining power of
the patent holder is significantly diminished, which is one objective
of the new policy.
The new DOJ/PTO statement is a welcome reform of a patent system that
has increasingly created a drag on innovation. It may also make it
more difficult for the US government to block compulsory licensing
activity in other countries.

The DOJ/PTO statement is attached below. A few quotes from the text follow:

--------begin quote
. . . when a standard incorporates patented technology owned by a
participant in the standards-setting process, and the standard becomes
established, it may be prohibitively difficult and expensive to switch
to a different technology within the established standard or to a
different standard entirely. As a result, the owner of that patented
technology may gain market power and potentially take advantage of it
by engaging in patent hold-up, which entails asserting the patent to
exclude a competitor from a market or obtain a higher price for its
use than would have been possible before the standard was set, when
alternative technologies could have been chosen. This type of patent
hold-up can cause other problems as well. For example, it may induce
prospective implementers to postpone or avoid making commitments to a
standardized technology or to make inefficient investments in
developing and implementing a standard in an effort to protect
themselves. Consumers of products implementing the standard could also
be harmed to the extent that the hold-up generates unwarranted higher
royalties and those royalties are passed on to consumers in the form
of higher prices. . .

The USITC has a mandate to consider the “effect of such exclusion upon
the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United
States economy, the production of like or directly competitive
articles in the United States, and United States consumers.” [19] As
the USITC has observed, these public interest factors ‘“are not meant
to be given mere lip service,” but rather “‘public health and welfare
and the assurance of competitive conditions in the United States
economy must be the overriding considerations in the administration of
this statute.’” . . .

The USITC may conclude, after applying its public interest factors,
that exclusion orders are inappropriate in the circumstances described
in more detail above. Alternatively, it may be appropriate for the
USITC, as it has done for other reasons in the past, to delay the
effective date of an exclusion order for a limited period of time to
provide parties the opportunity to conclude a F/RAND license. Finally,
determinations on the appropriate remedy in cases involving
F/RANDencumbered, standards-essential patents should be made against
the backdrop of promoting both appropriate compensation to patent
holders and strong incentives for innovators to participate in
standards-setting activities.
-------end quote


The full text of the policy statement

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
POLICY STATEMENT ON REMEDIES FOR STANDARDS-ESSENTIAL PATENTS SUBJECT
TO VOLUNTARY F/RAND COMMITMENTS
January 8, 2013

    [snip]




-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to 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 Feb 26 19:21:51 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:51:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A87BB477-0F40-4E61-909D-6C0C030EA499@hserus.net>

It is an interesting development in a different and unrelated feld, and appears to be for the public good. which does happen, laissez faire is a thing of the past, even in open markets.

Again, how relevant is this to Internet governance?  

--srs (iPad)

On 26-Feb-2013, at 21:50, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

> Should the government intervene in this market?
> 
> http://keionline.org/node/1663
> 
> The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for compulsory licenses on
> thousands of "standards-essential" patents
> 
> 26. February 2013
> 
> On January 8, 2013, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S.
> Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued a joint statement on
> "remedies for standards-essential patents subject to voluntary F/RAND
> commitments. (Copy of statement here). The statement was directed to
> the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) which
> administers Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC 1337. Unfair
> practices in import trade, see:
> http://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/), and it has the practical
> effect of introducing a policy of compulsory licenses for thousands of
> standards relevant patents.
> 
> DOJ and PTO are responding to growing criticism of the patent system
> as it relates to mobile computing devices and other technologies where
> product developers find it difficult if not impossible to obtain
> voluntary licenses on reasonable terms to the large number of patents
> covering various aspects of the product. The decision is important for
> four reasons.
> 
> (1) A very large number of patents are impacted by the policy,
> arguable making it the largest compulsory license decision in history.
> 
> (2) DOJ and PTO invoked the sections of U.S. law that allow
> infringement of a patent when the ITC considers the "effect of such
> exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions
> in the United States economy, the production of like or directly
> competitive articles in the United States, and United States
> consumers."
> 
> (3) High patent royalties are seen has a potential harm to consumers.
> 
> (4) The policy operates outside of Article 31 of the TRIPS, instead
> relying upon the considerable flexibility under Article 44 of the
> TRIPS Agreement, which allows WTO members to limit the availability of
> injunctions when royalty payments or other compensation or
> remuneration is available to patent holders.
> 
> The policy now being implemented at the ITC is to make it very
> difficult for patent owners to obtain injunctions to stop infringement
> of valid patents in cases where the patent is subject to a policy of
> licensing on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. And, when
> parties cannot reach an agreement on license terms, the ITC or the
> courts may step in and set royalties. By making it much more difficult
> for a patent holder to obtain an injunction, the bargaining power of
> the patent holder is significantly diminished, which is one objective
> of the new policy.
> The new DOJ/PTO statement is a welcome reform of a patent system that
> has increasingly created a drag on innovation. It may also make it
> more difficult for the US government to block compulsory licensing
> activity in other countries.
> 
> The DOJ/PTO statement is attached below. A few quotes from the text follow:
> 
> --------begin quote
> . . . when a standard incorporates patented technology owned by a
> participant in the standards-setting process, and the standard becomes
> established, it may be prohibitively difficult and expensive to switch
> to a different technology within the established standard or to a
> different standard entirely. As a result, the owner of that patented
> technology may gain market power and potentially take advantage of it
> by engaging in patent hold-up, which entails asserting the patent to
> exclude a competitor from a market or obtain a higher price for its
> use than would have been possible before the standard was set, when
> alternative technologies could have been chosen. This type of patent
> hold-up can cause other problems as well. For example, it may induce
> prospective implementers to postpone or avoid making commitments to a
> standardized technology or to make inefficient investments in
> developing and implementing a standard in an effort to protect
> themselves. Consumers of products implementing the standard could also
> be harmed to the extent that the hold-up generates unwarranted higher
> royalties and those royalties are passed on to consumers in the form
> of higher prices. . .
> 
> The USITC has a mandate to consider the “effect of such exclusion upon
> the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United
> States economy, the production of like or directly competitive
> articles in the United States, and United States consumers.” [19] As
> the USITC has observed, these public interest factors ‘“are not meant
> to be given mere lip service,” but rather “‘public health and welfare
> and the assurance of competitive conditions in the United States
> economy must be the overriding considerations in the administration of
> this statute.’” . . .
> 
> The USITC may conclude, after applying its public interest factors,
> that exclusion orders are inappropriate in the circumstances described
> in more detail above. Alternatively, it may be appropriate for the
> USITC, as it has done for other reasons in the past, to delay the
> effective date of an exclusion order for a limited period of time to
> provide parties the opportunity to conclude a F/RAND license. Finally,
> determinations on the appropriate remedy in cases involving
> F/RANDencumbered, standards-essential patents should be made against
> the backdrop of promoting both appropriate compensation to patent
> holders and strong incentives for innovators to participate in
> standards-setting activities.
> -------end quote
> 
> 
> The full text of the policy statement
> 
> UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
> POLICY STATEMENT ON REMEDIES FOR STANDARDS-ESSENTIAL PATENTS SUBJECT
> TO VOLUNTARY F/RAND COMMITMENTS
> January 8, 2013
> 
>   [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your 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  Tue Feb 26 21:24:35 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:24:35 +1200
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Riaz,

This is extremely interesting in terms of impact on Internet Governance.
The developments are relevant due to the conflicts between IETF RFCs and
Patents as was the case last year with a certain patent application.

Not to mention, that the US Department of Commerce oversees both the USPTO
and by extension- ICANN through the IANA.

From face value - compulsory licenses for standards means to my mind at
least the staking of authority and shift in standards regulations. On a
prima facie level, it is also a shift from ITU-T to the USPTO and the ping
pong between forum shoopping between WTO and ITU-T has begun.

Interesting times ahead. Thanks for picking this up and monitoring this
space.

Take care,

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

> Should the government intervene in this market?
>
> http://keionline.org/node/1663
>
> The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for compulsory licenses on
> thousands of "standards-essential" patents
>
> 26. February 2013
>
> On January 8, 2013, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S.
> Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued a joint statement on
> "remedies for standards-essential patents subject to voluntary F/RAND
> commitments. (Copy of statement here). The statement was directed to
> the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) which
> administers Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC 1337. Unfair
> practices in import trade, see:
> http://www.usitc.gov/**intellectual_property/<http://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/>),
> and it has the practical
> effect of introducing a policy of compulsory licenses for thousands of
> standards relevant patents.
>
> DOJ and PTO are responding to growing criticism of the patent system
> as it relates to mobile computing devices and other technologies where
> product developers find it difficult if not impossible to obtain
> voluntary licenses on reasonable terms to the large number of patents
> covering various aspects of the product. The decision is important for
> four reasons.
>
> (1) A very large number of patents are impacted by the policy,
> arguable making it the largest compulsory license decision in history.
>
> (2) DOJ and PTO invoked the sections of U.S. law that allow
> infringement of a patent when the ITC considers the "effect of such
> exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions
> in the United States economy, the production of like or directly
> competitive articles in the United States, and United States
> consumers."
>
> (3) High patent royalties are seen has a potential harm to consumers.
>
> (4) The policy operates outside of Article 31 of the TRIPS, instead
> relying upon the considerable flexibility under Article 44 of the
> TRIPS Agreement, which allows WTO members to limit the availability of
> injunctions when royalty payments or other compensation or
> remuneration is available to patent holders.
>
> The policy now being implemented at the ITC is to make it very
> difficult for patent owners to obtain injunctions to stop infringement
> of valid patents in cases where the patent is subject to a policy of
> licensing on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. And, when
> parties cannot reach an agreement on license terms, the ITC or the
> courts may step in and set royalties. By making it much more difficult
> for a patent holder to obtain an injunction, the bargaining power of
> the patent holder is significantly diminished, which is one objective
> of the new policy.
> The new DOJ/PTO statement is a welcome reform of a patent system that
> has increasingly created a drag on innovation. It may also make it
> more difficult for the US government to block compulsory licensing
> activity in other countries.
>
> The DOJ/PTO statement is attached below. A few quotes from the text follow:
>
> --------begin quote
> . . . when a standard incorporates patented technology owned by a
> participant in the standards-setting process, and the standard becomes
> established, it may be prohibitively difficult and expensive to switch
> to a different technology within the established standard or to a
> different standard entirely. As a result, the owner of that patented
> technology may gain market power and potentially take advantage of it
> by engaging in patent hold-up, which entails asserting the patent to
> exclude a competitor from a market or obtain a higher price for its
> use than would have been possible before the standard was set, when
> alternative technologies could have been chosen. This type of patent
> hold-up can cause other problems as well. For example, it may induce
> prospective implementers to postpone or avoid making commitments to a
> standardized technology or to make inefficient investments in
> developing and implementing a standard in an effort to protect
> themselves. Consumers of products implementing the standard could also
> be harmed to the extent that the hold-up generates unwarranted higher
> royalties and those royalties are passed on to consumers in the form
> of higher prices. . .
>
> The USITC has a mandate to consider the “effect of such exclusion upon
> the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United
> States economy, the production of like or directly competitive
> articles in the United States, and United States consumers.” [19] As
> the USITC has observed, these public interest factors ‘“are not meant
> to be given mere lip service,” but rather “‘public health and welfare
> and the assurance of competitive conditions in the United States
> economy must be the overriding considerations in the administration of
> this statute.’” . . .
>
> The USITC may conclude, after applying its public interest factors,
> that exclusion orders are inappropriate in the circumstances described
> in more detail above. Alternatively, it may be appropriate for the
> USITC, as it has done for other reasons in the past, to delay the
> effective date of an exclusion order for a limited period of time to
> provide parties the opportunity to conclude a F/RAND license. Finally,
> determinations on the appropriate remedy in cases involving
> F/RANDencumbered, standards-essential patents should be made against
> the backdrop of promoting both appropriate compensation to patent
> holders and strong incentives for innovators to participate in
> standards-setting activities.
> -------end quote
>
>
> The full text of the policy statement
>
> UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK
> OFFICE
> POLICY STATEMENT ON REMEDIES FOR STANDARDS-ESSENTIAL PATENTS SUBJECT
> TO VOLUNTARY F/RAND COMMITMENTS
> January 8, 2013
>
>    [snip]
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130227/49dfe150/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 26 21:42:54 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:12:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>

I am sorry but RFCs are consensus based standards. Even if they 
conflict with or are alternate implementations of patents it has little 
or no impact to actual governance

--srs (htc one x)



On 27 February 2013 7:54:35 AM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" 
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Riaz,
>
> This is extremely interesting in terms of impact on Internet Governance.
> The developments are relevant due to the conflicts between IETF RFCs and
> Patents as was the case last year with a certain patent application.
>
> Not to mention, that the US Department of Commerce oversees both the USPTO
> and by extension- ICANN through the IANA.
>
> From face value - compulsory licenses for standards means to my mind at
> least the staking of authority and shift in standards regulations. On a
> prima facie level, it is also a shift from ITU-T to the USPTO and the ping
> pong between forum shoopping between WTO and ITU-T has begun.
>
> Interesting times ahead. Thanks for picking this up and monitoring this
> space.
>
> Take care,
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Should the government intervene in this market?
> >
> > http://keionline.org/node/1663
> >
> > The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for compulsory licenses on
> > thousands of "standards-essential" patents
> >
> > 26. February 2013
> >
> > On January 8, 2013, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S.
> > Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued a joint statement on
> > "remedies for standards-essential patents subject to voluntary F/RAND
> > commitments. (Copy of statement here). The statement was directed to
> > the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) which
> > administers Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC 1337. Unfair
> > practices in import trade, see:
> > 
> http://www.usitc.gov/**intellectual_property/<http://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/>),
> > and it has the practical
> > effect of introducing a policy of compulsory licenses for thousands of
> > standards relevant patents.
> >
> > DOJ and PTO are responding to growing criticism of the patent system
> > as it relates to mobile computing devices and other technologies where
> > product developers find it difficult if not impossible to obtain
> > voluntary licenses on reasonable terms to the large number of patents
> > covering various aspects of the product. The decision is important for
> > four reasons.
> >
> > (1) A very large number of patents are impacted by the policy,
> > arguable making it the largest compulsory license decision in history.
> >
> > (2) DOJ and PTO invoked the sections of U.S. law that allow
> > infringement of a patent when the ITC considers the "effect of such
> > exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions
> > in the United States economy, the production of like or directly
> > competitive articles in the United States, and United States
> > consumers."
> >
> > (3) High patent royalties are seen has a potential harm to consumers.
> >
> > (4) The policy operates outside of Article 31 of the TRIPS, instead
> > relying upon the considerable flexibility under Article 44 of the
> > TRIPS Agreement, which allows WTO members to limit the availability of
> > injunctions when royalty payments or other compensation or
> > remuneration is available to patent holders.
> >
> > The policy now being implemented at the ITC is to make it very
> > difficult for patent owners to obtain injunctions to stop infringement
> > of valid patents in cases where the patent is subject to a policy of
> > licensing on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. And, when
> > parties cannot reach an agreement on license terms, the ITC or the
> > courts may step in and set royalties. By making it much more difficult
> > for a patent holder to obtain an injunction, the bargaining power of
> > the patent holder is significantly diminished, which is one objective
> > of the new policy.
> > The new DOJ/PTO statement is a welcome reform of a patent system that
> > has increasingly created a drag on innovation. It may also make it
> > more difficult for the US government to block compulsory licensing
> > activity in other countries.
> >
> > The DOJ/PTO statement is attached below. A few quotes from the text follow:
> >
> > --------begin quote
> > . . . when a standard incorporates patented technology owned by a
> > participant in the standards-setting process, and the standard becomes
> > established, it may be prohibitively difficult and expensive to switch
> > to a different technology within the established standard or to a
> > different standard entirely. As a result, the owner of that patented
> > technology may gain market power and potentially take advantage of it
> > by engaging in patent hold-up, which entails asserting the patent to
> > exclude a competitor from a market or obtain a higher price for its
> > use than would have been possible before the standard was set, when
> > alternative technologies could have been chosen. This type of patent
> > hold-up can cause other problems as well. For example, it may induce
> > prospective implementers to postpone or avoid making commitments to a
> > standardized technology or to make inefficient investments in
> > developing and implementing a standard in an effort to protect
> > themselves. Consumers of products implementing the standard could also
> > be harmed to the extent that the hold-up generates unwarranted higher
> > royalties and those royalties are passed on to consumers in the form
> > of higher prices. . .
> >
> > The USITC has a mandate to consider the “effect of such exclusion upon
> > the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United
> > States economy, the production of like or directly competitive
> > articles in the United States, and United States consumers.” [19] As
> > the USITC has observed, these public interest factors ‘“are not meant
> > to be given mere lip service,” but rather “‘public health and welfare
> > and the assurance of competitive conditions in the United States
> > economy must be the overriding considerations in the administration of
> > this statute.’” . . .
> >
> > The USITC may conclude, after applying its public interest factors,
> > that exclusion orders are inappropriate in the circumstances described
> > in more detail above. Alternatively, it may be appropriate for the
> > USITC, as it has done for other reasons in the past, to delay the
> > effective date of an exclusion order for a limited period of time to
> > provide parties the opportunity to conclude a F/RAND license. Finally,
> > determinations on the appropriate remedy in cases involving
> > F/RANDencumbered, standards-essential patents should be made against
> > the backdrop of promoting both appropriate compensation to patent
> > holders and strong incentives for innovators to participate in
> > standards-setting activities.
> > -------end quote
> >
> >
> > The full text of the policy statement
> >
> > UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK
> > OFFICE
> > POLICY STATEMENT ON REMEDIES FOR STANDARDS-ESSENTIAL PATENTS SUBJECT
> > TO VOLUNTARY F/RAND COMMITMENTS
> > January 8, 2013
> >
> >    [snip]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130227/6bda8a2a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Feb 26 23:54:15 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:24:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org>

On 27/02/2013, at 8:12 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

> I am sorry but RFCs are consensus based standards. Even if they conflict with or are alternate implementations of patents it has little or no impact to actual governance 
> 


The patents regime directly affect the cost and functionality of Internet access devices, especially mobile devices that are critical to access in the developing world, therefore I agree with Sala, a very central issue for Internet governance discussions.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130227/766db208/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Feb 26 23:57:42 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:27:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] Announcement on the Interim Chair
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBd+DiPFx6Nqf1CN2DYOnpkhpzcre34PbBYRA+vHyyA5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <18F44630-9C65-43F1-B78B-319B426FECC2@unog.ch> <CAHuaJtMv2eRgSbyPKYrhuKZtHBiSmVuZqnCkWn=1Q5dMSb2ZDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOzvoR1kGiu4JKVZ-pCUUvqEm46cxkya==Mbkc=m8B6JisZfLQ@mail.gmail.com> <1361880846.53661.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA048FA9D05@IVORITE.icchq.org> <20130226140829.GB3923@hserus.net> <CAJwbTiBd+DiPFx6Nqf1CN2DYOnpkhpzcre34PbBYRA+vHyyA5A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E28F7090-7C14-4096-A31B-07C1FE859543@ciroap.org>

On 26/02/2013, at 7:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is really excellent news :)
> 
> Congratulations Markus!

My perspective is rather different.  One of the main merits of having UN staff as the Executive Coordinator and as the MAG Chair was their independence on questions of Internet governance.  This is a point that Markus and Nitin had previously expressly made (I don't have the quote to hand, but I can dig it up if anyone is interested).

ISOC is far from independent in that regard.  It has a direct interest in maintaining its control over Internet governance, as the organisational home of some of the key existing bodies and processes such as the IAB and IETF, and apparently considers itself to have an interest in opposing the rise of parallel bodies and processes (even if intended as complementary) that would deal with non-technical policy issues in a similar way.

ISOC's track record over the last seven years speaks for itself in this regard, and so - even before he joined ISOC - does Markus Kummer's.  I have previously documented (eg. at http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-take-away-from-vilnius---if-the-igf-wont-change-itself-others-will, and also in my book) many instances in which Markus has exercised a strong reactionary influence on the IGF and its MAG, this dating back to the earliest days of its formation and the way in which that was steered.

I fear very greatly that just as the IGF has the opportunity to make progress on issues such as the compilation of principles and the adoption of more outcome-oriented formats, Markus will not provide the kind of positive and active facilitation that is needed, and will instead continue to urge caution and restraint as he has always done, holding the IGF back from the fulfilment of its agreed mandate - while being paid by ISOC which shares this aim.

I have been accused of personalising the issues around Internet governance reform by naming people like Markus over their roles in this process, but I don't resile from the fact that if someone takes a public office, their behaviour in that office renders them liable to public criticism, and if I'm the one who has to do that even if it makes me unpopular, I'll do it.  Without detracting from the many positive contributions that Markus has also made (particularly at the WGIG), I honestly do feel that we could use some new blood at the head of the MAG if we want it and the IGF to improve their effectiveness at this very critical time.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130227/478f5320/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Feb 26 23:59:30 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:59:30 -0800
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net>

Jeremy Malcolm [27/02/13 10:24 +0530]:
>The patents regime directly affect the cost and functionality of Internet
>access devices, especially mobile devices that are critical to access in
>the developing world, therefore I agree with Sala, a very central issue
>for Internet governance discussions.

That is questionable given that there is a much wider variety of access
devices, and moreover, cost at least is based on economies of scale, market
conditions etc. There is very little that a patent in this field does to
confer monopoly given the wide variety of smartphones from various
manufacturers, not to mention PCs / laptops etc.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Feb 27 01:05:04 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:05:04 +0000
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org>,<20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Actually...one might geopolitically view the USPTO policy change as primarily motivated at forcing a truce among device manufacturers/patent holders.

That is, mainly impacting device sales wherein various manufacturers (cough, Apple and Samsung primarily, but sometimes also other Google/Android allies; and also occasional bit players Microsoft and R.I.M.) did indeed use patent claims to assert a monopoly in national markets to smart phones with particular feature sets.  

Those skirmishes played out primarily between US, South Korean, and German courts determining to permit or block   market access for devices, over last few years. 

So yeah, definitely it's about monopoly power; if we are speaking of patents that's the whole idea.

Why the truce now? Last I was paying attention, South Korean courts had sided with Samsung in a patent case v Apple which would block iPhones from South Korea; while a US jury sided with Apple over basically the same set of contested patent claims, which could block Samsung from US markets. Shocking! ; )  

Anyway, after all the major players spent billions arming themselves with more patents to play more rounds of these games over last few years, for most consumers we might view the move to compulsory licenses on reaonable terms as a positive. Maybe, Qualcomm and Apple would disagree, since generally they have the strongest hands; except Apple's hand in telecom/mobile-like spaces is not as strong as one might think, since they are relative newbies; so maybe they are happy too.

Anyway, re connection to global Internet governance, one might view this as a win for open Internet/open innovation policies generally, limiting power of particular firms to keep others out of the market, and generally positive for increasing Internet access as Sala noted.

Re the USPTO + IANA->Dept Commerce v ITU-T hypothesis; honestly that's not so plausible since most standards action we are discussing plays out in 3GPP which ties into ITU-R; with most action really in the 3GPP space which is entirely home to giant companies and not so much/no civil society or even government people.  They're all hanging in Barcelona I think this week or was it last; if we can't answer then sadly  none of us are paying enough attention to where - the money - is.

Meaning, the industrial elephants roam where they want, with ITU-R having a minimal truth in advertising role in saying what is really 'true' 4g; except all mobile companies everywhere worldwide lie and market their 3g as - 4g. Since that's the hottest new brand, if not actually the ITU/3GPP technical spec any of them can just yet.

(And remember in Dubai even ITU critics made nice noises about ITU-R, which is not that controversial and knows how to play nicely with the big boys of industry, and governments worldwide re spectrum or orbital arc allocation. Occasionally controversial subjects in past decades, not so much now.

Noone from IETF plays much in these fields either I believe, so in that sense it does not relate to core Internet protocols either.

Still, those specs only tie in part to device-embedded standards; and I believe the truth is the same as always; which nis no matter what you call it, the first law of 3g or 4g is...you pay Qualcomm patent royalties.

Which, I agree with Suresh now, is not so much a matter of Internet governance, as a fact of market power due to a strong - really strong - patent portfolio, to help jam lots more users in same amount of spectrum.  Which Qualcomm built the old-fashioned way, through decades of research with a slightly different view than conventional wisdom. 

My - 5 cents summary: USPTO ruling is generally a win for consumers worldwide; which will help lower device costs/enhance Internet access; but does not touch much directly any of the usual suspect Internet governance agencies, instead being a generic step towards liberalizing terms of technology goods trade of the WTO variety. 

One which I strongly suspect the South Koreans and the Germans/EU and others knew about well in advance; through 'enhanced cooperation'? ; )

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:59 PM
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents

Jeremy Malcolm [27/02/13 10:24 +0530]:
>The patents regime directly affect the cost and functionality of Internet
>access devices, especially mobile devices that are critical to access in
>the developing world, therefore I agree with Sala, a very central issue
>for Internet governance discussions.

That is questionable given that there is a much wider variety of access
devices, and moreover, cost at least is based on economies of scale, market
conditions etc. There is very little that a patent in this field does to
confer monopoly given the wide variety of smartphones from various
manufacturers, not to mention PCs / laptops etc.


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to 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 Feb 27 01:24:33 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:54:33 +0530
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org> <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <B4767273-EA7F-4BDC-93FC-344E8C8F765F@hserus.net>

I agree with Lee's analysis. Do note that the monopoly is for a particular device or class of devices, at the most - with the market still widely open to a range of competing devices.

If your definition of "internet access" only covers best in class, latest model smartphones and tablets, "with particular feature sets" as Lee puts it, I guess you can make a case that restrictive patent wars limit internet access, 

In which case, the USG action is actually for the public good in iGov.  And a fair topic to discuss here.

Qualcomm will remain scrupulously neutral in whatever patent wars are around - they end up raking in royalties from parties on either side of any patent fight in cellular telephony and there's no incentive for them to fight - their monopoly isn't under challenge and they're content to stay in the background being a provider of technology rather than marketing a brand.

It still is for the public good as Lee says, but I will maintain that it has little or no relationship with internet governance.  And with a vast range of topics that are much more relevant to igov and where we don't meet deadlines to submit there .. I am of the opinion that we could keep discussion of such unrelated topics, interesting as they are, on other groups more suited to the subject matter.

--srs (iPad)

On 27-Feb-2013, at 11:35, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> Actually...one might geopolitically view the USPTO policy change as primarily motivated at forcing a truce among device manufacturers/patent holders.
> 
> That is, mainly impacting device sales wherein various manufacturers (cough, Apple and Samsung primarily, but sometimes also other Google/Android allies; and also occasional bit players Microsoft and R.I.M.) did indeed use patent claims to assert a monopoly in national markets to smart phones with particular feature sets.  
> 
> Those skirmishes played out primarily between US, South Korean, and German courts determining to permit or block   market access for devices, over last few years. 
> 
> So yeah, definitely it's about monopoly power; if we are speaking of patents that's the whole idea.
> 
> Why the truce now? Last I was paying attention, South Korean courts had sided with Samsung in a patent case v Apple which would block iPhones from South Korea; while a US jury sided with Apple over basically the same set of contested patent claims, which could block Samsung from US markets. Shocking! ; )  
> 
> Anyway, after all the major players spent billions arming themselves with more patents to play more rounds of these games over last few years, for most consumers we might view the move to compulsory licenses on reaonable terms as a positive. Maybe, Qualcomm and Apple would disagree, since generally they have the strongest hands; except Apple's hand in telecom/mobile-like spaces is not as strong as one might think, since they are relative newbies; so maybe they are happy too.
> 
> Anyway, re connection to global Internet governance, one might view this as a win for open Internet/open innovation policies generally, limiting power of particular firms to keep others out of the market, and generally positive for increasing Internet access as Sala noted.
> 
> Re the USPTO + IANA->Dept Commerce v ITU-T hypothesis; honestly that's not so plausible since most standards action we are discussing plays out in 3GPP which ties into ITU-R; with most action really in the 3GPP space which is entirely home to giant companies and not so much/no civil society or even government people.  They're all hanging in Barcelona I think this week or was it last; if we can't answer then sadly  none of us are paying enough attention to where - the money - is.
> 
> Meaning, the industrial elephants roam where they want, with ITU-R having a minimal truth in advertising role in saying what is really 'true' 4g; except all mobile companies everywhere worldwide lie and market their 3g as - 4g. Since that's the hottest new brand, if not actually the ITU/3GPP technical spec any of them can just yet.
> 
> (And remember in Dubai even ITU critics made nice noises about ITU-R, which is not that controversial and knows how to play nicely with the big boys of industry, and governments worldwide re spectrum or orbital arc allocation. Occasionally controversial subjects in past decades, not so much now.
> 
> Noone from IETF plays much in these fields either I believe, so in that sense it does not relate to core Internet protocols either.
> 
> Still, those specs only tie in part to device-embedded standards; and I believe the truth is the same as always; which nis no matter what you call it, the first law of 3g or 4g is...you pay Qualcomm patent royalties.
> 
> Which, I agree with Suresh now, is not so much a matter of Internet governance, as a fact of market power due to a strong - really strong - patent portfolio, to help jam lots more users in same amount of spectrum.  Which Qualcomm built the old-fashioned way, through decades of research with a slightly different view than conventional wisdom. 
> 
> My - 5 cents summary: USPTO ruling is generally a win for consumers worldwide; which will help lower device costs/enhance Internet access; but does not touch much directly any of the usual suspect Internet governance agencies, instead being a generic step towards liberalizing terms of technology goods trade of the WTO variety. 
> 
> One which I strongly suspect the South Koreans and the Germans/EU and others knew about well in advance; through 'enhanced cooperation'? ; )
> 
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:59 PM
> To: Jeremy Malcolm
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
> 
> Jeremy Malcolm [27/02/13 10:24 +0530]:
>> The patents regime directly affect the cost and functionality of Internet
>> access devices, especially mobile devices that are critical to access in
>> the developing world, therefore I agree with Sala, a very central issue
>> for Internet governance discussions.
> 
> That is questionable given that there is a much wider variety of access
> devices, and moreover, cost at least is based on economies of scale, market
> conditions etc. There is very little that a patent in this field does to
> confer monopoly given the wide variety of smartphones from various
> manufacturers, not to mention PCs / laptops etc.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 27 01:43:22 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:43:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] Making HappyTalk in Paris: Disneyland and the WSIS +10
 Review
Message-ID: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com>

Some reflections on the WSIS +10 Review.

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneylan
d-and-the-wsis-10-review/

http://tinyurl.com/ay3a2r6

M




-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 03:23:23 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:23:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org>,<20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <512DC27B.10805@gmail.com>

Conceptions of the ecosystems of Internet Governance differ, 
particularly as relates to legitimacy or exceptionalism issues.

At a similar level of abstraction, what this shows is that national 
choices can have extra territorial effect, namely the policy of low 
quality patents in the US and the relegation of disputes to the legal 
system.

In addition, there is the local US tension between the old intel prop 
rentiers in the Pharma (20 year patent) and recording industries (70 y 
plus copyright) vs the more dynamic and fast moving ICT industry; and 
perhaps this is an indication that the US has decided to take action on 
these matters, in order to reap what it has sown. It does indicate that 
even the sacred cow of the patent system is not beyond the bounds of 
intervention, which at this level of abstraction should attract 
critiques of governmental intervention *which for some is presumptively bad.






On 2013/02/27 08:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Actually...one might geopolitically view the USPTO policy change as primarily motivated at forcing a truce among device manufacturers/patent holders.
>


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to 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 Feb 27 03:37:16 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:07:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <512DC27B.10805@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org> <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <512DC27B.10805@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9405606E-8D66-48A7-BDFC-4F311A8AF144@hserus.net>

"exceptionalism", "rentiers" - the point would be made much better without such stale and overused ideological catchphrases.

Anyway - there is plenty of recorded government intervention in the patent system. Worldwide, and in the United States.

--srs (iPad)

On 27-Feb-2013, at 13:53, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

> Conceptions of the ecosystems of Internet Governance differ, particularly as relates to legitimacy or exceptionalism issues.
> 
> At a similar level of abstraction, what this shows is that national choices can have extra territorial effect, namely the policy of low quality patents in the US and the relegation of disputes to the legal system.
> 
> In addition, there is the local US tension between the old intel prop rentiers in the Pharma (20 year patent) and recording industries (70 y plus copyright) vs the more dynamic and fast moving ICT industry; and perhaps this is an indication that the US has decided to take action on these matters, in order to reap what it has sown. It does indicate that even the sacred cow of the patent system is not beyond the bounds of intervention, which at this level of abstraction should attract critiques of governmental intervention *which for some is presumptively bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013/02/27 08:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>> Actually...one might geopolitically view the USPTO policy change as primarily motivated at forcing a truce among device manufacturers/patent holders.
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 27 04:03:09 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:33:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <512DC7A0.7000503@wzb.eu>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org> <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <512DC27B.10805@gmail.com> <9405606E-8D66-48A7-BDFC-4F311A8AF144@hserus.net> <512DC7A0.7000503@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <1B4380D4-3AF4-4A11-8F7A-929827C6D4DB@hserus.net>

Cc'ing the list back as this point deserves broader discussion

I find the language used offensive which is why I replied.  I assume the historical context of who the rentiers were might escape those who simply find it a powerful catchphrase.

Marx co-opted a term - like several - from the days of the paris commune, where the petit bourgeoisie middle class city dwellers, and the rentiers - slumlords and absentee landlords who oppressed peasants - were the villians in a struggle started by the poor of the city.

While there is a lot to oppose in patents -

1. None of it is even remotely close to the scale of oppression that the actual rentiers Marx had in mind when he used the phrase

2. Marx saw them as class enemies.  Which goes kind of against the entire practice of multistakeholderism where we're supposed to engage with industry, not treat them as an enemy to be eradicated - implicitly, by using - I repeat - stale catchphrases derived from marxism.  Which, I need hardly remind you, has been a failed experiment when it was finally tried in practice and doesn't exist except in one or two stray dictatorships, and in jargon flung around by various people on mailing lists.

If you think the atmosphere is poisonous - I agree.  It is made poisonous by the use of divisive rhetoric in a list that is committed to multistakeholderism.

thanks
--srs (iPad)

On 27-Feb-2013, at 14:15, Jeanette Hofmann <hofmann at internetundgesellschaft.de> wrote:

> I really, really don't understand why you have to be so offensive. What you may find stale and ideological may be powerful language for other people. Can you please stop attacking members of this list and thereby poisening the atmosphere in this space. thank you.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Am 27.02.13 09:37, schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian:
>> "exceptionalism", "rentiers" - the point would be made much better without such stale and overused ideological catchphrases.
>> 
>> Anyway - there is plenty of recorded government intervention in the patent system. Worldwide, and in the United States.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>> On 27-Feb-2013, at 13:53, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Conceptions of the ecosystems of Internet Governance differ, particularly as relates to legitimacy or exceptionalism issues.
>>> 
>>> At a similar level of abstraction, what this shows is that national choices can have extra territorial effect, namely the policy of low quality patents in the US and the relegation of disputes to the legal system.
>>> 
>>> In addition, there is the local US tension between the old intel prop rentiers in the Pharma (20 year patent) and recording industries (70 y plus copyright) vs the more dynamic and fast moving ICT industry; and perhaps this is an indication that the US has decided to take action on these matters, in order to reap what it has sown. It does indicate that even the sacred cow of the patent system is not beyond the bounds of intervention, which at this level of abstraction should attract critiques of governmental intervention *which for some is presumptively bad.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2013/02/27 08:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>> Actually...one might geopolitically view the USPTO policy change as primarily motivated at forcing a truce among device manufacturers/patent holders.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 27 04:03:51 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:33:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <CA+aiKTQbeXsupB42Ja1Cd6VxNkr2DeGGzi7HAxhBxohmk96VKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org> <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <512DC27B.10805@gmail.com> <9405606E-8D66-48A7-BDFC-4F311A8AF144@hserus.net> <CA+aiKTQbeXsupB42Ja1Cd6VxNkr2DeGGzi7HAxhBxohmk96VKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <76E99926-F97D-4B05-8BA8-A3B3C53BDDB1@hserus.net>

Important - yes.

Related to internet governance in any shape or form - no.

Which is why I must repeat my plea that we retain focus.

--srs (iPad)

On 27-Feb-2013, at 14:13, Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org> wrote:

> I think the DOJ/PTO decision is pretty important, because it (1)
> recognizes the problem that thousands of exclusive rights presents to
> developers of new services and products, and (2) is directed at
> standards, which are at the core of the Internet's operation.
> Exclusive rights have become an outdated and much abused paradigm for
> patents and copyrights in a wide range of contexts, and governments
> have been slow to fashion new paradigms.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> "exceptionalism", "rentiers" - the point would be made much better without such stale and overused ideological catchphrases.
>> 
>> Anyway - there is plenty of recorded government intervention in the patent system. Worldwide, and in the United States.
>> 
>> --srs (iPad)
>> 
>> On 27-Feb-2013, at 13:53, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Conceptions of the ecosystems of Internet Governance differ, particularly as relates to legitimacy or exceptionalism issues.
>>> 
>>> At a similar level of abstraction, what this shows is that national choices can have extra territorial effect, namely the policy of low quality patents in the US and the relegation of disputes to the legal system.
>>> 
>>> In addition, there is the local US tension between the old intel prop rentiers in the Pharma (20 year patent) and recording industries (70 y plus copyright) vs the more dynamic and fast moving ICT industry; and perhaps this is an indication that the US has decided to take action on these matters, in order to reap what it has sown. It does indicate that even the sacred cow of the patent system is not beyond the bounds of intervention, which at this level of abstraction should attract critiques of governmental intervention *which for some is presumptively bad.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2013/02/27 08:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>> Actually...one might geopolitically view the USPTO policy change as primarily motivated at forcing a truce among device manufacturers/patent holders.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040,
> Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140.
> twitter.com/jamie_love

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 04:26:34 2013
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:26:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] Supreme Court Dismisses ACLU's Challenge to NSA
 Warrantless Wiretapping Law | Common Dreams
Message-ID: <512DD14A.4000404@gmail.com>

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2013/02/26

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Feb 27 07:48:16 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:48:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 and climate change sensitive regions
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiBCrF21iO3r_aYNSjZZUk9LcVUzbvfZtEbKidu21efPhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLA2UvAg0jCrLxkF0m+Fu7_yujwNsH0L1EcJL4RMLMQjWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiBCrF21iO3r_aYNSjZZUk9LcVUzbvfZtEbKidu21efPhA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALrvCLACEEOnD_+0oeVb773COvsLiCtfdbBeftSGWdP_ghqerw@mail.gmail.com>

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would also look for someone from Bangladesh

I'm looking, but without success so far. :-)

Does anyone in the Caucus have a contact to someone from Bangladesh
who is currently here in Paris for the WSIS+10 review conference?

Greetings,
Norbert

>> See below for an explanation of the reasons for this interest.
>>
>> On 2/26/13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> > Personally I found the remarks of Rajendra Pachauri (the chair
>> > of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) very inspiring
>> > and energizing: He spoke on applying knowledge to address
>> > important global problems, among which he emphasized not only
>> > climate change but also poverty. Nothing about what he pointed
>> > out is really new or surprising to anyone who is minimally well
>> > informed, but I still found his intervention highly significant.
>> > Perhaps the reason which makes me assign significance to his
>> > words is not so much the content of what he said, but the fact
>> > that (at least from my perspective) he did not come across as
>> > someone speaking with the voice of a politician, but as someone
>> > with a mindset grounded in engineering. Also significant is the
>> > prominence that the WSIS+10 organizers assigned to his brief
>> > speech by putting it first in the "high level panel" before all
>> > the ministers.
>> >
>> > In summary, perhaps the main point of the day is that the
>> > concept of knowledge societies really needs to be about the
>> > sharing and application of knowledge in practical ways.
>>
>> Another major reason why I found this inspiring is of course that
>> this resonates with plans that I've been pondering for quite some
>> time, to try launching a refocused version of the "Enhanced
>> Cooperation Task Force" (ECTF) that was discussed here a while
>> back [1]. I'm keeping the ECTF proposal alive with minor changes
>> more or less as-is in the hope that it may in some way be a useful
>> input to the CSTD Working-Group on Enhanced Cooperation. But now
>> that the UN system has started a probably slow process on deciding
>> an official meaning for the term “Enhanced Cooperation”, I really
>> don't want to delay application of the key ideas of that proposal
>> until it is clear whether the UN will eventually take action in
>> that direction or not.
>>
>> I'm calling the branch of the proposal that I want to go forward
>> with without delay "Wisdom Task Force" (WisdomTF) [2], and I want
>> to focus it initially at least on addressing the problem of
>> developing effective policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions
>> globally, and getting governments to implement such effective
>> policies, together with whatever information society and development
>> issues that will turn out to be effectively inseparably linked with
>> this objective. In other words, the plan is to apply information
>> society techniques, inspired significantly by the Internet
>> Engineering Task Force (IETF), to a policy area which is not
>> primarily technical. Of course, if this plan works out, it will
>> end up impacting also other areas of governance, including Internet
>> governance in the narrower sense of "governance of what makes the
>> Internet work".
>>
>> [1] http://enhanced-cooperation.org/RFA/1
>> [2] http://wisdomtaskforce.org/RFB/1
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gtw at gtwassociates.com  Wed Feb 27 09:17:00 2013
From: gtw at gtwassociates.com (GTW)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:17:00 -0500
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <76E99926-F97D-4B05-8BA8-A3B3C53BDDB1@hserus.net>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org> <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <512DC27B.10805@gmail.com> <9405606E-8D66-48A7-BDFC-4F311A8AF144@hserus.net> <CA+aiKTQbeXsupB42Ja1Cd6VxNkr2DeGGzi7HAxhBxohmk96VKQ@mail.gmail.com> <76E99926-F97D-4B05-8BA8-A3B3C53BDDB1@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <880A0EAEED1640D4BF8FA7204D44ADCF@GTWPC>

Congratulations and thanks  to Jamie for bringing the matter of licensing 
patents essential to practice a standard to the attention of this list. This 
topic indeed has global implications.   However IMO it is not at all  clear 
what are  proper and helpful  roles of government intervention to address 
problems that  arise.   I  prefer  private sector market based solutions 
over  government interventions with their attendant many  unforeseen  and 
unanticipated consequences.

Fortunately IMO  it is  not true that the DOJ and USPTO statement 
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf   calls for 
compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents as the 
title of this email thread contends.  The document's title more closely 
describes its purpose and content, "POLICY STATEMENT ON REMEDIES FOR 
STANDARDS-ESSENTIAL PATENTS SUBJECT TO VOLUNTARY F/RAND COMMITMENTS"   IMO 
one of its purposes is to help courts and the US International Trade 
Commission understand what are the nuances of issues involving standards and 
patents in current litigation and requests for ITC exclusion orders.  It 
also nudges standards developing organizations around the world to consider 
how their polices and procedures  address potential problems that may arise 
with their standards.

Recently the US Federal Trade Commission FTC also proposed some actions to 
address problems it perceived in this space.  I disagreed with aspects of 
both of these proposals. I disagreed in the first case 
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/rboschgmbh/00013-85359.pdf   for example when 
FTC  proposed to require royalty free licensing  of some patents FTC 
themselves agreed were not essential to practice a standard. I disagreed  in 
the second case for example 
http://ftc.gov/os/comments/motorolagoogle/563708-00013-85543.pdf   when FTC 
proposed to require many steps before a  patent holder could begin to  seek 
legal  remedies in matters involving infringement of patents

It is true there are global  problems and issues that arise related to 
matter of licensing patents essential to practice a standard.  These 
problems and issues deserve global examination and discussion.  IMO 
potential solutions to these issues need to balance  encouragement for the 
many positive contributions and role of Intellectual Property to global 
standard setting with the needs of potential license holders to practice 
global standards on a reasonable basis.   IMO government intervention 
mandating solutions risks upsetting that balance

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President GTW Associates

-----Original Message----- 
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:03 AM
To: Jamie Love
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Riaz K Tayob
Subject: Re: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for 
compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents

Important - yes.

Related to internet governance in any shape or form - no.

Which is why I must repeat my plea that we retain focus.

--srs (iPad)

On 27-Feb-2013, at 14:13, Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org> wrote:

> I think the DOJ/PTO decision is pretty important, because it (1)
> recognizes the problem that thousands of exclusive rights presents to
> developers of new services and products, and (2) is directed at
> standards, which are at the core of the Internet's operation.
> Exclusive rights have become an outdated and much abused paradigm for
> patents and copyrights in a wide range of contexts, and governments
> have been slow to fashion new paradigms.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> "exceptionalism", "rentiers" - the point would be made much better 
>> without such stale and overused ideological catchphrases.
>>
>> Anyway - there is plenty of recorded government intervention in the 
>> patent system. Worldwide, and in the United States.
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>> On 27-Feb-2013, at 13:53, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Conceptions of the ecosystems of Internet Governance differ, 
>>> particularly as relates to legitimacy or exceptionalism issues.
>>>
>>> At a similar level of abstraction, what this shows is that national 
>>> choices can have extra territorial effect, namely the policy of low 
>>> quality patents in the US and the relegation of disputes to the legal 
>>> system.
>>>
>>> In addition, there is the local US tension between the old intel prop 
>>> rentiers in the Pharma (20 year patent) and recording industries (70 y 
>>> plus copyright) vs the more dynamic and fast moving ICT industry; and 
>>> perhaps this is an indication that the US has decided to take action on 
>>> these matters, in order to reap what it has sown. It does indicate that 
>>> even the sacred cow of the patent system is not beyond the bounds of 
>>> intervention, which at this level of abstraction should attract 
>>> critiques of governmental intervention *which for some is presumptively 
>>> bad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013/02/27 08:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>> Actually...one might geopolitically view the USPTO policy change as 
>>>> primarily motivated at forcing a truce among device 
>>>> manufacturers/patent holders.
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> -- 
> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040,
> Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140.
> twitter.com/jamie_love







____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your 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 daniel at digsys.bg  Wed Feb 27 09:48:05 2013
From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:48:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <B4767273-EA7F-4BDC-93FC-344E8C8F765F@hserus.net>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org> <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <B4767273-EA7F-4BDC-93FC-344E8C8F765F@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <512E1CA5.1050908@digsys.bg>



On 27.02.13 08:24, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> I agree with Lee's analysis. Do note that the monopoly is for a particular device or class of devices, at the most - with the market still widely open to a range of competing devices.

While I agree in principle with these opinions, my take on the subject 
is a bit different.

First, I fully support this initiative, because I believe this is the 
right thing to do. Let's hope it will be implemented across the EU too 
and around the world.

The current system of 'standards essential patents' is absurd. A bunch 
of vendors come together and produce an "standard" that is more or less 
mandatory for everyone. Yet, at the same time, those parties retain 
patent rights over the technologies they "contributed" to the standard. 
In essence, they create a new requirement for everyone (the standard) 
that when you use, and you don't have much choice not to use it, 
requires you to pay them royalties. Worst of all, they are who sets the 
royalties and you are at their mercy. (example) Samsung doesn't like 
Apple, so they ask them outrageous amounts for what they charge someone 
pennies. (end of example). This is an well known economic phenomena: 
cartel. Cartels are illegal in many jurisdictions, yet for some strange 
reason are allowed to exist with standards.

My preferred solution to this situation would be to require any and all 
technologies, that are included as part of a standard be put in the 
public domain (or equivalent). If you don't want your technology 
becoming public domain, it has no place in standards. You still have the 
advantage to have already implemented it (let's hope) and know it 
intimately.

The solution DOJ and USPTO came to is a milder version, which will still 
work.

Daniel

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to 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 Feb 27 09:59:57 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:29:57 +0530
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <512E1CA5.1050908@digsys.bg>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org> <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <B4767273-EA7F-4BDC-93FC-344E8C8F765F@hserus.net> <512E1CA5.1050908@digsys.bg>
Message-ID: <03E9F929-54A3-412D-8F6C-11446887A758@hserus.net>

Any such standard developed with US Gov funding is now required to be public domain - which is all for the good.

--srs (iPad)

On 27-Feb-2013, at 20:18, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 27.02.13 08:24, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> I agree with Lee's analysis. Do note that the monopoly is for a particular device or class of devices, at the most - with the market still widely open to a range of competing devices.
> 
> While I agree in principle with these opinions, my take on the subject is a bit different.
> 
> First, I fully support this initiative, because I believe this is the right thing to do. Let's hope it will be implemented across the EU too and around the world.
> 
> The current system of 'standards essential patents' is absurd. A bunch of vendors come together and produce an "standard" that is more or less mandatory for everyone. Yet, at the same time, those parties retain patent rights over the technologies they "contributed" to the standard. In essence, they create a new requirement for everyone (the standard) that when you use, and you don't have much choice not to use it, requires you to pay them royalties. Worst of all, they are who sets the royalties and you are at their mercy. (example) Samsung doesn't like Apple, so they ask them outrageous amounts for what they charge someone pennies. (end of example). This is an well known economic phenomena: cartel. Cartels are illegal in many jurisdictions, yet for some strange reason are allowed to exist with standards.
> 
> My preferred solution to this situation would be to require any and all technologies, that are included as part of a standard be put in the public domain (or equivalent). If you don't want your technology becoming public domain, it has no place in standards. You still have the advantage to have already implemented it (let's hope) and know it intimately.
> 
> The solution DOJ and USPTO came to is a milder version, which will still work.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 27 11:04:23 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:04:23 -0800
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <CA+aiKTRD-puoGtsUx-BxNAT4CkFgyZksZsJ2x=01xSBL9EUw_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
 <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org>
 <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <B4767273-EA7F-4BDC-93FC-344E8C8F765F@hserus.net>
 <512E1CA5.1050908@digsys.bg>
 <03E9F929-54A3-412D-8F6C-11446887A758@hserus.net>
 <CA+aiKTRD-puoGtsUx-BxNAT4CkFgyZksZsJ2x=01xSBL9EUw_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130227160423.GA22428@hserus.net>

Jamie Love [27/02/13 17:10 +0200]:
>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
><suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Any such standard developed with US Gov funding is now required to be public domain - which is all for the good.
>
>    Can you provide some citation for this?

I am not sure this white house announcement also extends to patents, it
only references paper publications, but ..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/22/expanding-public-access-results-federally-funded-research

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Feb 27 11:12:55 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:12:55 -0800
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <CA+aiKTSyMHzVecUAg4r9PfjLpWu9bZMk=qHbdg3b0pG-8mT4gA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
 <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org>
 <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net>
 <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <B4767273-EA7F-4BDC-93FC-344E8C8F765F@hserus.net>
 <512E1CA5.1050908@digsys.bg>
 <03E9F929-54A3-412D-8F6C-11446887A758@hserus.net>
 <CA+aiKTRD-puoGtsUx-BxNAT4CkFgyZksZsJ2x=01xSBL9EUw_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130227160423.GA22428@hserus.net>
 <CA+aiKTSyMHzVecUAg4r9PfjLpWu9bZMk=qHbdg3b0pG-8mT4gA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130227161255.GA22555@hserus.net>

Jamie Love [27/02/13 18:11 +0200]:
>I am sure it does not extend to patents.  Jamie

Though - if the material around a patent gets worked into a standard?

There might just be a gray area there, given the abundance of patents
registered first and standards built around them sent around to various
standards bodies.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gtw at gtwassociates.com  Wed Feb 27 13:16:01 2013
From: gtw at gtwassociates.com (GTW)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:16:01 -0500
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <20130227160423.GA22428@hserus.net>
References: <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org> <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <B4767273-EA7F-4BDC-93FC-344E8C8F765F@hserus.net> <512E1CA5.1050908@digsys.bg> <03E9F929-54A3-412D-8F6C-11446887A758@hserus.net> <CA+aiKTRD-puoGtsUx-BxNAT4CkFgyZksZsJ2x=01xSBL9EUw_Q@mail.gmail.com> <20130227160423.GA22428@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <DD59F597B5F64D689322A12FBCCDA82A@GTWPC>

The   2/22 White House Memo "Increasing Access to the Results of Federally 
Funded Scientific Research" 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf 
has copyright  implications for the publication in scholarly journals  of 
articles reporting results of studies that may have been all or partially 
federally funded.   Some professional societies whose journals are 
subscription based or who provide articles for a fee may be  affected.



George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President GTW Associates
-----Original Message----- 
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:04 AM
To: Jamie Love
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Daniel Kalchev
Subject: Re: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for 
compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents

Jamie Love [27/02/13 17:10 +0200]:
>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
><suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> Any such standard developed with US Gov funding is now required to be 
>> public domain - which is all for the good.
>
>    Can you provide some citation for this?

I am not sure this white house announcement also extends to patents, it
only references paper publications, but ..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/22/expanding-public-access-results-federally-funded-research

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 27 15:01:59 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:01:59 +1200
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <880A0EAEED1640D4BF8FA7204D44ADCF@GTWPC>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
	<625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org>
	<20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net>
	<77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<512DC27B.10805@gmail.com>
	<9405606E-8D66-48A7-BDFC-4F311A8AF144@hserus.net>
	<CA+aiKTQbeXsupB42Ja1Cd6VxNkr2DeGGzi7HAxhBxohmk96VKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<76E99926-F97D-4B05-8BA8-A3B3C53BDDB1@hserus.net>
	<880A0EAEED1640D4BF8FA7204D44ADCF@GTWPC>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiAVa2=M5hAr1dpfaQ9P89QD1K2wr99TekMh7RoxHntR2g@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:17 AM, GTW <gtw at gtwassociates.com> wrote:

> Congratulations and thanks  to Jamie for bringing the matter of licensing
> patents essential to practice a standard to the attention of this list.
> This topic indeed has global implications.


[ST>] Earlier in reading Riaz's initial email, I had not gone into the
links that he showed which if I had would have shown that Jamie Love wrote
an elaborate piece on the subject. Thank you Jamie for bringing this to
everyone's attention and Riaz for notifying us too.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/661c1b5e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Thu Feb 28 00:49:17 2013
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:19:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <880A0EAEED1640D4BF8FA7204D44ADCF@GTWPC>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com> <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com> <CAJwbTiAmM3e_6ouVeSpqcrM1ftHNVuS9NbWWDgYVh74rfoh_0Q@mail.gmail.com> <13d1987deaa.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <625EEFF3-CB4F-47A2-B040-8907A5FFE303@ciroap.org> <20130227045930.GA14419@hserus.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1C6EE1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <512DC27B.10805@gmail.com> <9405606E-8D66-48A7-BDFC-4F311A8AF144@hserus.net> <CA+aiKTQbeXsupB42Ja1Cd6VxNkr2DeGGzi7HAxhBxohmk96VKQ@mail.gmail.com> <76E99926-F97D-4B05-8BA8-A3B3C53BDDB1@hserus.net> <880A0EAEED1640D4BF8FA7204D44ADCF@GTWPC>
Message-ID: <512EEFDD.9030306@ITforChange.net>

On 02/27/2013 07:47 PM, GTW wrote:
> Congratulations and thanks  to Jamie for bringing the matter of 
> licensing patents essential to practice a standard to the attention of 
> this list. This topic indeed has global implications.   However IMO it 
> is not at all  clear what are proper and helpful  roles of government 
> intervention to address problems that  arise.   I  prefer  private 
> sector market based solutions over  government interventions with 
> their attendant many  unforeseen  and unanticipated consequences.
>

George

You mean that Government interventions are attendant with many "many 
unforeseen  and unanticipated consequences. "

while (unregulated) private sector market based solutions have entirely 
anticipated consequences ....  like the derivatives disaster, from which 
the world is still trying to recover.

(though it  is understandable why a private sector representative whose 
work typically is "representing US business interests to national and 
international organizations;...+" would want a laissez faire situation
Sometimes I think we have too much of US business representation :-)  
here....

But worse than either nightmare - state control or private sector 
control .... would be an unholy alliance between the two where the lines 
between the two get increasingly blurred (as is many times the case with 
US Govt. and US based trans-nationals)... see "The Revolving Door Spins 
from Sea to Shining Sea" for one reason why this blurring is happening 
http://www.nationofchange.org/revolving-door-spins-sea-shining-sea-1361976538

regards
Guru
+ http://gtwassociates.com/gtw/index.htm

> Fortunately IMO  it is  not true that the DOJ and USPTO statement 
> http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/290994.pdf   calls for 
> compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents as 
> the title of this email thread contends.  The document's title more 
> closely describes its purpose and content, "POLICY STATEMENT ON 
> REMEDIES FOR STANDARDS-ESSENTIAL PATENTS SUBJECT TO VOLUNTARY F/RAND 
> COMMITMENTS"   IMO one of its purposes is to help courts and the US 
> International Trade Commission understand what are the nuances of 
> issues involving standards and patents in current litigation and 
> requests for ITC exclusion orders.  It also nudges standards 
> developing organizations around the world to consider how their 
> polices and procedures  address potential problems that may arise with 
> their standards.
>
> Recently the US Federal Trade Commission FTC also proposed some 
> actions to address problems it perceived in this space.  I disagreed 
> with aspects of both of these proposals. I disagreed in the first case 
> http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/rboschgmbh/00013-85359.pdf   for 
> example when FTC  proposed to require royalty free licensing  of some 
> patents FTC themselves agreed were not essential to practice a 
> standard. I disagreed  in the second case for example 
> http://ftc.gov/os/comments/motorolagoogle/563708-00013-85543.pdf when 
> FTC proposed to require many steps before a  patent holder could begin 
> to  seek legal  remedies in matters involving infringement of patents
>
> It is true there are global  problems and issues that arise related to 
> matter of licensing patents essential to practice a standard.  These 
> problems and issues deserve global examination and discussion.  IMO 
> potential solutions to these issues need to balance  encouragement for 
> the many positive contributions and role of Intellectual Property to 
> global standard setting with the needs of potential license holders to 
> practice global standards on a reasonable basis.   IMO government 
> intervention mandating solutions risks upsetting that balance
>
> George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
> President GTW Associates
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:03 AM
> To: Jamie Love
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Riaz K Tayob
> Subject: Re: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call 
> for compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
>
> Important - yes.
>
> Related to internet governance in any shape or form - no.
>
> Which is why I must repeat my plea that we retain focus.
>
> --srs (iPad)
>
> On 27-Feb-2013, at 14:13, Jamie Love <james.love at keionline.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the DOJ/PTO decision is pretty important, because it (1)
>> recognizes the problem that thousands of exclusive rights presents to
>> developers of new services and products, and (2) is directed at
>> standards, which are at the core of the Internet's operation.
>> Exclusive rights have become an outdated and much abused paradigm for
>> patents and copyrights in a wide range of contexts, and governments
>> have been slow to fashion new paradigms.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> "exceptionalism", "rentiers" - the point would be made much better 
>>> without such stale and overused ideological catchphrases.
>>>
>>> Anyway - there is plenty of recorded government intervention in the 
>>> patent system. Worldwide, and in the United States.
>>>
>>> --srs (iPad)
>>>
>>> On 27-Feb-2013, at 13:53, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Conceptions of the ecosystems of Internet Governance differ, 
>>>> particularly as relates to legitimacy or exceptionalism issues.
>>>>
>>>> At a similar level of abstraction, what this shows is that national 
>>>> choices can have extra territorial effect, namely the policy of low 
>>>> quality patents in the US and the relegation of disputes to the 
>>>> legal system.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, there is the local US tension between the old intel 
>>>> prop rentiers in the Pharma (20 year patent) and recording 
>>>> industries (70 y plus copyright) vs the more dynamic and fast 
>>>> moving ICT industry; and perhaps this is an indication that the US 
>>>> has decided to take action on these matters, in order to reap what 
>>>> it has sown. It does indicate that even the sacred cow of the 
>>>> patent system is not beyond the bounds of intervention, which at 
>>>> this level of abstraction should attract critiques of governmental 
>>>> intervention *which for some is presumptively bad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2013/02/27 08:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
>>>>> Actually...one might geopolitically view the USPTO policy change 
>>>>> as primarily motivated at forcing a truce among device 
>>>>> manufacturers/patent holders.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> James Love.  Knowledge Ecology International
>> http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040,
>> Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140.
>> twitter.com/jamie_love
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/ce9505ac/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 02:03:11 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:03:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] WSIS+10 My Address on Behalf of
 Civil Society
In-Reply-To: <CAO9TZ0Va5S6f4ug+tdqv5wD_S54OUt7eVC0PnypeW7-4OD9wUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <04e501ce13e8$3f108230$bd318690$@gmail.com> <CAO9TZ0Va5S6f4ug+tdqv5wD_S54OUt7eVC0PnypeW7-4OD9wUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00d401ce1581$b44b47c0$1ce1d740$@gmail.com>

Thanks Steve :) (with the lesson never try to do/distribute a blogpost in
(somewhat) real time :(

 

M

 

From: Steven Clift [mailto:clift at e-democracy.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 1:29 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: IRP; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] WSIS+10 My Address on Behalf of Civil Society

 

Actually the blog link is here:
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/world-summit-on-the-information-soc
iety-looking-back-and-looking-forward-my-comments-to-a-wsis-10-review-plenar
y/

Unless you want us to edit it? :-)

On a related note, for those interested in digital divide/inclusion issues I
invite you to join the largest e-list on the topic called the Digital
Inclusion Network. Join at:
http://e-democracy.org/di

Steven Clift

On Feb 26, 2013 12:12 AM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

Colleagues,

I'm attaching my address on behalf of Civil Society to the WSIS +10 Review
meeting, Feb. 25, 2013 in Paris.

I've also put this up on my blog at:

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=683
<http://gurstein.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=683&action=edit&messag
e=6&postpost=v2> &action=edit&message
=6&postpost=v2

http://tinyurl.com/aq6qb75

Best,

M

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/f75b870e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb 28 02:36:37 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:36:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 in Paris: Brief report from days 2 and 3
Message-ID: <CALrvCLC8HTfTgtRcvVX-biQXVX05A2j30DPZ2wnuzNJ5c+T9aA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all

Here is my brief report from days 2 and 3 of WSIS+10 review
conference in Paris.

As documented in the conference programme [1], there were a large
number of workshops, giving various groups opportunities to
showcase their activities and successes, but also allowing
various thoughts to be expressed. In a reflection of my personal
interests, what stands out in my mind is the serious of workshops
on principles, and the one Wednesday afternoon on enhanced
cooperation. As always, the informal conversations outside of the
official programme were however the most valuable.
[1] https://www.unesco-ci.org/cmscore/events

Curiously missing from that online programme is an activity that
may in the long run turn out be the most significant aspect of
conference: A consensus process, in which all conference
participants were welcome to participate on an equal footing, for
a non-binding outcome document which has then been adopted at the
closing plenary.

Even though this process has been deeply flawed in that the draft
which served as starting point for the consensus process was not
created in a bottom-up manner, but provided by UNESCO (and this
shows through very strongly in the final result), and not nearly
enough time was spent on changing the initial draft into something
that better reflects the actual discussions at the event (three
hours on Tuesday and 1.5 hours on Wednesday, for a total of only
four and a half hours), I commend the WSIS+10 organizers for their
courage in making this happen. This sets a good and important
precedent.

In this context, I am a bit proud of the bullet point which I
formulated and suggested and which is now included in this
consensus outcome document. It is in the context of what the
conference participants invite all stakeholders to do, and it
reads: “Continue exploring how the practices and philosophy of the
Free Software and Open Source movements can be applied to other
challenges of knowledge societies besides software.” I am not
aware of this specific point having ever before been included in
any international outcome document; I am definitely going to cite
this, for example in the context of my Wisdom Task Force proposal.

Besides the adoption of the outcome document, the closing session
also featured a number of speeches. Notable among these were the
offer of Brazil to host the 2015 IGF and Anita Gurumurthy's very
impressive speech of behalf of civil society. I happened to be
sitting next to a government representative from an African
country, and knowing that I was also from civil society, he
immediately asked me if I could get him a copy of the speech. It
was interesting for me to learn from him how his country's
government participates in such a conference. He is the person at
the embassy in Paris who is (among other repsonsibilities) in
charge of covering the activities at UNESCO that his government
is interested in, and he attended the opening ceremony and the
closing session, skipping everything in between.

In summary, this was not a serious review event, even though high
calibre people capable of doing a true review of information
society developments were present. Instead of the economics
professor who gave the opening keynote via video conference link,
saying things which maybe were exciting ten years ago, UNESCO
could have called e.g. on Anita to do the keynote, followed by
bottom-up deliberation processes to actually discuss the real
problems, and leading up to an outcome document truly worthy of a
review conference. They could still have set aside part of the
time to provide opportunities for workshop organizers, but in a
review conference there should be a credible review process and
it should be center stage. So even though the proverbial glass
has been at least half full for me personally, I agree with
Michael Gurstein's blog post [2] characterizing the event as a
missed opportunity.
[2] http://tinyurl.com/abgd47u

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 Feb 28 02:41:40 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:41:40 +1200
Subject: [governance] WSIS+10 in Paris: Brief report from days 2 and 3
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLC8HTfTgtRcvVX-biQXVX05A2j30DPZ2wnuzNJ5c+T9aA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALrvCLC8HTfTgtRcvVX-biQXVX05A2j30DPZ2wnuzNJ5c+T9aA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiA+=91qZeMOfiiKw5TLC_+dj3q98dGzp=j-pP7_+BGXHg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Norbert, much appreciated.

Warm Regards,
Sala

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Dear all
>
> Here is my brief report from days 2 and 3 of WSIS+10 review
> conference in Paris.
>
> As documented in the conference programme [1], there were a large
> number of workshops, giving various groups opportunities to
> showcase their activities and successes, but also allowing
> various thoughts to be expressed. In a reflection of my personal
> interests, what stands out in my mind is the serious of workshops
> on principles, and the one Wednesday afternoon on enhanced
> cooperation. As always, the informal conversations outside of the
> official programme were however the most valuable.
> [1] https://www.unesco-ci.org/cmscore/events
>
> Curiously missing from that online programme is an activity that
> may in the long run turn out be the most significant aspect of
> conference: A consensus process, in which all conference
> participants were welcome to participate on an equal footing, for
> a non-binding outcome document which has then been adopted at the
> closing plenary.
>
> Even though this process has been deeply flawed in that the draft
> which served as starting point for the consensus process was not
> created in a bottom-up manner, but provided by UNESCO (and this
> shows through very strongly in the final result), and not nearly
> enough time was spent on changing the initial draft into something
> that better reflects the actual discussions at the event (three
> hours on Tuesday and 1.5 hours on Wednesday, for a total of only
> four and a half hours), I commend the WSIS+10 organizers for their
> courage in making this happen. This sets a good and important
> precedent.
>
> In this context, I am a bit proud of the bullet point which I
> formulated and suggested and which is now included in this
> consensus outcome document. It is in the context of what the
> conference participants invite all stakeholders to do, and it
> reads: “Continue exploring how the practices and philosophy of the
> Free Software and Open Source movements can be applied to other
> challenges of knowledge societies besides software.” I am not
> aware of this specific point having ever before been included in
> any international outcome document; I am definitely going to cite
> this, for example in the context of my Wisdom Task Force proposal.
>
> Besides the adoption of the outcome document, the closing session
> also featured a number of speeches. Notable among these were the
> offer of Brazil to host the 2015 IGF and Anita Gurumurthy's very
> impressive speech of behalf of civil society. I happened to be
> sitting next to a government representative from an African
> country, and knowing that I was also from civil society, he
> immediately asked me if I could get him a copy of the speech. It
> was interesting for me to learn from him how his country's
> government participates in such a conference. He is the person at
> the embassy in Paris who is (among other repsonsibilities) in
> charge of covering the activities at UNESCO that his government
> is interested in, and he attended the opening ceremony and the
> closing session, skipping everything in between.
>
> In summary, this was not a serious review event, even though high
> calibre people capable of doing a true review of information
> society developments were present. Instead of the economics
> professor who gave the opening keynote via video conference link,
> saying things which maybe were exciting ten years ago, UNESCO
> could have called e.g. on Anita to do the keynote, followed by
> bottom-up deliberation processes to actually discuss the real
> problems, and leading up to an outcome document truly worthy of a
> review conference. They could still have set aside part of the
> time to provide opportunities for workshop organizers, but in a
> review conference there should be a credible review process and
> it should be center stage. So even though the proverbial glass
> has been at least half full for me personally, I agree with
> Michael Gurstein's blog post [2] characterizing the event as a
> missed opportunity.
> [2] http://tinyurl.com/abgd47u
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/d4e9c3a7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Feb 28 04:02:40 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:32:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] wsis 10 closing ceremony speech
Message-ID: <512F1D30.2050205@itforchange.net>


pl find enclosed, and also below, the speech delivered by my colleague 
Anita Gurumurthy as a closing ceremony civil society speaker.

parminder


*Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT for 
Change<#sdfootnote1sym> *

**

*at the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review *

**

*held by UNESCO from 25th to 27th February, 2013*


Dear fellow-citizens of the world;

On the occasion of this initial meeting in the WSIS+10 review process. I 
would like to take us back in time to the decade of the 90s and the 
particular sentiments at the turn of the millennium that framed the 
World Summit on the Information Society. In the late 90s, the power of 
the digital revolution was seen as heralding a new hope for addressing 
long standing challenges in development. At the same time, world leaders 
were also concerned that the digital divide at international and 
national levels could lead to shaping a new class of those who have 
access to ICTs and those who do not. As we stand at this milestone of 
the WSIS plus 10 review, we have the responsibility to go back to this 
concern. The Internet – as the future social paradigm – is already yet 
another axis shaping exclusion and power.

The WSIS Declaration of Principles titled 'Building the Information 
Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium' avers in its preamble 
that no one should be excluded from the benefits the information society 
offers. It notes – with conviction interlaced with caution that - 'under 
favourable conditions', these technologies (that is, ICTs) can be a 
powerful instrument, increasing productivity, generating economic 
growth, job creation and employability and improving the quality of life 
of all.

This is the moment of reckoning – for all of us – to ask if we stand at 
the threshold of a new positive future for all and if indeed, the global 
and national governance and policy architectures of the new 
techno-social paradigm have created the 'favourable conditions' for the 
good life that seemed plausible in 2003.

  *

    The economic crisis of the recent years, in the developed world, is
    a serious indictment of the macro economic pathways of neo-liberal
    growth and its policies. Recent research in Europe suggests that
    serious attention needs to be paid to the inequality in work -
    wages, working conditions and social cohesion - and its
    microeconomic implications.

  *

    Even in Latin America, despite relative economic stability and
    reduction in poverty in many countries, a recent research by the UN
    says that the richest 20% of the population on average earn 20 times
    more than the poorest 20%. There is a considerable job deficit and a
    large labour informality affecting mainly the young and women.
    Colombia, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Bolivia, the Dominican
    Republic, Argentina and Guatemala have all seen an increase in
    inequality in the past decade.

  *

    The Asian giants China and India, often touted as rising economic
    powers, face huge challenges in socio-economic equity – the
    consuming middle class may but be a smokescreen that hides the
    livelihoods crisis for the majority.


All this has happened in the same decade that the Internet ought to have 
been been equalising social and economic opportunity. We need to sit 
back and reflect,what went wrong?Why did the Internet, and the 
Information Society phenomenon not do what it was supposed to do? This 
is the principal question that the WSIS review process must answer.

If the good life is also about democratic transitions, then the miracles 
of technology may certainly be counted as harbingers of deep change in 
the past decade. Authoritarian states have had to come to terms with the 
power of interconnection in the network age. The Occupy Movement gave 
new hope to social movements. Yet, new configurations of power in 
mainstream spaces have more or less seen the political elite make way 
for a new class of economic elite – information society democracy 
remains as exclusionary as its predecessors. Perhaps more, with little 
place for women and others in the margins, and oblivious of new forms of 
violence and misogyny in the open and ostensibly emancipatory corridors 
of the virtual world.

Those of us committed to build a people-centred, inclusive and 
development oriented information society have to come to terms with and 
interrogate the roots of these crises – the unfavourable conditions that 
seem to have jettisoned the equalising propensities of the Internet.

The crisis today for the information society agenda is two fold – it is 
economic and it is cultural. The neo-liberal juggernaut has – at an 
unstoppable speed – usurped the power of connectedness. As some cyber 
enthusiasts continue to sing peons to the power of the supposedly 
decentralised, non-hierarchical and inclusive Net, the human predicament 
in real terms is far from this idealised picture. Today, a handful of 
colossal corporate mega-giants rule private empires - the top 10 Web 
sites accounted for 31 percent of US page views in 2001, 40 percent in 
2006, and about 75 percent in 2010...”

Centralization is the name of the game – the most powerful weapon in 
neo-liberalism's arsenal. Consider Google: when it comes to user data, 
today Google runs a much more centralized operation than five years ago 
where individual searches, youtube video histories, and calendars 
combine to generate individualised and targeted ads. The Internet market 
place atomises the consumer-user, coopting her persona as a commodity in 
a logic that may not be self evident to Internet enthusiasts unwilling 
to see the realpolitik.

The cultural crisis is deeper. What the architects of the WSIS documents 
perhaps underestimated is the way the information society would 
precipitate a normative crisis. As the Internet market place broadens 
its horizons, we see the individuals, communities and nations, 
fragmented by increasing self interest. The seamless geographies of the 
connected world are images of the Internet's economic paradigm – where 
membership for marginalised individuals, social groups and nations is a 
simple binary - assimilation or decimation. The talk of diversity and 
multiligualism notwithstanding, there is much less we can aspire today 
out of the promise of the networks society for collaboration and 
horizontalism than seemed plausible ten years ago. We need to pause and 
ask – are our normative frameworks – infoethics and info-civic 
imaginaries – adequate to ensure that every person, the last woman, can 
be a global citizen in the interconnected global world.

What we are witness to instead of a reflection around the basics of 
democracy in the interconnected world, are anxieties of nations states 
that make ancient tribal chieftans seem like impeccable upholders of 
freedoms and the rule of law

The various international summits of the UN, Rio-Earth Summit in 1992 , 
Cairo in 1994 on population, Copenhagen in 1995 on social development, 
Beijing in 1996 for women – pursued problems confronting humanity with 
the resolve to find progressive solutions. Today these have contributed 
to the broadbasing and democratisation of civil society engagement. 
There are some lessons here for civil society in the information society 
space.

Also, as we move towards the WSIS + 10 review, we need to be cognizant 
of the competing demands of the Millennium Development Goals Review 
(Post 2015 Development Agenda), the processes to set the post-Rio+20 
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the 20-year review of the 
International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD+20). These 
overlapping inter-governmental processes are bound to render the ideals 
of the WSIS declaration obscure unless we are able to pitch for a review 
that can offer analytical and pragmatic segways for the other UN reviews.

The WSIS plus 10 review is a historic opportunity therefore to review 
the state of democracy – and I qualify, the state of global democracy. 
Here – we have two tasks

 1.

    Re-interpreting human rights, equality and sustainability in the
    information society. This is a dialogue that must inform the other
    UN reviews and discussions on the crises of food, fuel, finance and
    climate change, poverty and deprivation, inequality and insecurity,
    and violence against women.

 2.

    The second task is to explore the favourable conditions that can
    make the Internet an equaliser. As a global public good, the policy
    issues pertaining to the Internet are simultaneously global and
    national. Discussing the global policy issues around the Internet
    should be a principal aim of the WSIS plus 10 review process.

We stand at cross-roads. The promise of community has never been greater 
in theory, but the risk to the collective never higher in the brazen 
pursuit of economic self interest and aggrandizement of power. For civil 
society the modus operandi of organising is clear. We need to ask how 
best we can sieze and use the decentralising possibilities of the 
network age to craft new forms of organisation; how we can define the 
core issues that reflect honestly our analysis of the crises. The WSIS 
plus 10 review process must indeed take a leaf out of Jo Freeman's essay 
- 'The tyranny of structurelessness'. Let not the ideals of democracy in 
multistakeholderism be reduced to shadowboxing – where emerging 
hierarchies are denied and those that wield power escape with no 
accountability.

Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a 
means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work 
with and among people. We need to use this occasion of the WSIS plus 10 
review to go back to the the touchstone of legitimacy – engage with 
people and communities to find out the conditions of their material 
reality and what seems to lie ahead in the information society. From 
here we need to build our perspectives and then come to multistakeholder 
spaces and fight and fight hard for those who cannot be present here.



1 <#sdfootnote1anc>Www.ITforChange.net <http://Www.ITforChange.net/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/5df1a086/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS + 10 closing statement by Anita G.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 82460 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/5df1a086/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Feb 28 04:11:31 2013
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:11:31 +0000
Subject: [governance] The US Department of Justice and USPTO call for
 compulsory licenses on thousands of "standards-essential" patents
In-Reply-To: <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
References: <CA+aiKTQ9AaeHtO9Z+MtjaUO51AJC_K=eT2idEkCZKjhD1F6F7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <512CE0EB.9030103@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DPQJBBcD9xLRFAm1@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <512CE0EB.9030103 at gmail.com>, at 18:20:59 on Tue, 26 Feb 
2013, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> writes
>it has the practical effect of introducing a policy of compulsory 
>licenses for thousands of standards relevant patents.
>
>DOJ and PTO are responding to growing criticism of the patent system
>as it relates to mobile computing devices and other technologies where
>product developers find it difficult if not impossible to obtain
>voluntary licenses on reasonable terms to the large number of patents
>covering various aspects of the product.

The same issue (having to licence many patents) was one of the 
highlights of making [IBM-]PC clones 25 years ago. Then there were the 
copyright issues, with several firms setting up in business to prove 
non-infringing versions of things like the BIOS. And of course Microsoft 
based its business on selling clone makers copies of MSDOS that were 
sufficiently similar to the PCDOS it was supplying to IBM.
-- 
Roland Perry

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Thu Feb 28 04:16:51 2013
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:16:51 +0900
Subject: [governance] wsis 10 closing ceremony speech
In-Reply-To: <512F1D30.2050205@itforchange.net>
References: <512F1D30.2050205@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKiZT9VmL3Ra_hrYyOjznwt3vWZ2ya0k8mvH2hXSdn7vNg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Parminder for sharing this,

I was listening to her dynamic speech and it was very well received
one at the closing from the audience.

izumi




2013/2/28 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>
> pl find enclosed, and also below, the speech delivered by my colleague
> Anita Gurumurthy as a closing ceremony civil society speaker.
>
> parminder
>
>
>  *Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT for Change<#13d200afa8157a12_sdfootnote1sym>
> *
> * *
>
> *at the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review *
> * *
>
> *held by UNESCO from 25th to 27th February, 2013*
>
>
>   Dear fellow-citizens of the world;
>
> On the occasion of this initial meeting in the WSIS+10 review process. I
> would like to take us back in time to the decade of the 90s and the
> particular sentiments at the turn of the millennium that framed the World
> Summit on the Information Society. In the late 90s, the power of the
> digital revolution was seen as heralding a new hope for addressing long
> standing challenges in development. At the same time, world leaders were
> also concerned that the digital divide at international and national levels
> could lead to shaping a new class of those who have access to ICTs and
> those who do not. As we stand at this milestone of the WSIS plus 10 review,
> we have the responsibility to go back to this concern. The Internet – as
> the future social paradigm – is already yet another axis shaping exclusion
> and power.
>
> The WSIS Declaration of Principles titled 'Building the Information
> Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium' avers in its preamble
> that no one should be excluded from the benefits the information society
> offers. It notes – with conviction interlaced with caution that - 'under
> favourable conditions', these technologies (that is, ICTs) can be a
> powerful instrument, increasing productivity, generating economic growth,
> job creation and employability and improving the quality of life of all.
>
> This is the moment of reckoning – for all of us – to ask if we stand at
> the threshold of a new positive future for all and if indeed, the global
> and national governance and policy architectures of the new techno-social
> paradigm have created the 'favourable conditions' for the good life that
> seemed plausible in 2003.
>
>    -
>
>    The economic crisis of the recent years, in the developed world, is a
>    serious indictment of the macro economic pathways of neo-liberal growth and
>    its policies. Recent research in Europe suggests that serious attention
>    needs to be paid to the inequality in work - wages, working conditions and
>    social cohesion - and its microeconomic implications.
>     -
>
>    Even in Latin America, despite relative economic stability and
>    reduction in poverty in many countries, a recent research by the UN says
>    that the richest 20% of the population on average earn 20 times more than
>    the poorest 20%. There is a considerable job deficit and a large labour
>    informality affecting mainly the young and women. Colombia, Paraguay, Costa
>    Rica, Ecuador, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Argentina and Guatemala
>    have all seen an increase in inequality in the past decade.
>     -
>
>    The Asian giants China and India, often touted as rising economic
>    powers, face huge challenges in socio-economic equity – the consuming
>    middle class may but be a smokescreen that hides the livelihoods crisis for
>    the majority.
>
>
> All this has happened in the same decade that the Internet ought to have
> been been equalising social and economic opportunity. We need to sit back
> and reflect,what went wrong?Why did the Internet, and the Information
> Society phenomenon not do what it was supposed to do? This is the principal
> question that the WSIS review process must answer.
>
> If the good life is also about democratic transitions, then the miracles
> of technology may certainly be counted as harbingers of deep change in the
> past decade. Authoritarian states have had to come to terms with the power
> of interconnection in the network age. The Occupy Movement gave new hope to
> social movements. Yet, new configurations of power in mainstream spaces
> have more or less seen the political elite make way for a new class of
> economic elite – information society democracy remains as exclusionary as
> its predecessors. Perhaps more, with little place for women and others in
> the margins, and oblivious of new forms of violence and misogyny in the
> open and ostensibly emancipatory corridors of the virtual world.
>
> Those of us committed to build a people-centred, inclusive and development
> oriented information society have to come to terms with and interrogate the
> roots of these crises – the unfavourable conditions that seem to have
> jettisoned the equalising propensities of the Internet.
>
> The crisis today for the information society agenda is two fold – it is
> economic and it is cultural. The neo-liberal juggernaut has – at an
> unstoppable speed – usurped the power of connectedness. As some cyber
> enthusiasts continue to sing peons to the power of the supposedly
> decentralised, non-hierarchical and inclusive Net, the human predicament in
> real terms is far from this idealised picture. Today, a handful of colossal
> corporate mega-giants rule private empires - the top 10 Web sites accounted
> for 31 percent of US page views in 2001, 40 percent in 2006, and about 75
> percent in 2010...”
>
> Centralization is the name of the game – the most powerful weapon in
> neo-liberalism's arsenal. Consider Google: when it comes to user data,
> today Google runs a much more centralized operation than five years ago
> where individual searches, youtube video histories, and calendars combine
> to generate individualised and targeted ads. The Internet market place
> atomises the consumer-user, coopting her persona as a commodity in a logic
> that may not be self evident to Internet enthusiasts unwilling to see the
> realpolitik.
>
> The cultural crisis is deeper. What the architects of the WSIS documents
> perhaps underestimated is the way the information society would precipitate
> a normative crisis. As the Internet market place broadens its horizons, we
> see the individuals, communities and nations, fragmented by increasing self
> interest. The seamless geographies of the connected world are images of the
> Internet's economic paradigm – where membership for marginalised
> individuals, social groups and nations is a simple binary - assimilation or
> decimation. The talk of diversity and multiligualism notwithstanding, there
> is much less we can aspire today out of the promise of the networks society
> for collaboration and horizontalism than seemed plausible ten years ago. We
> need to pause and ask – are our normative frameworks – infoethics and
> info-civic imaginaries – adequate to ensure that every person, the last
> woman, can be a global citizen in the interconnected global world.
>
> What we are witness to instead of a reflection around the basics of
> democracy in the interconnected world, are anxieties of nations states that
> make ancient tribal chieftans seem like impeccable upholders of freedoms
> and the rule of law
>
> The various international summits of the UN, Rio-Earth Summit in 1992 ,
> Cairo in 1994 on population, Copenhagen in 1995 on social development,
> Beijing in 1996 for women – pursued problems confronting humanity with the
> resolve to find progressive solutions. Today these have contributed to the
> broadbasing and democratisation of civil society engagement. There are some
> lessons here for civil society in the information society space.
>
> Also, as we move towards the WSIS + 10 review, we need to be cognizant of
> the competing demands of the Millennium Development Goals Review (Post 2015
> Development Agenda), the processes to set the post-Rio+20 Sustainable
> Development Goals (SDGs), and the 20-year review of the International
> Conference on Population and Development (ICPD+20). These overlapping
> inter-governmental processes are bound to render the ideals of the WSIS
> declaration obscure unless we are able to pitch for a review that can offer
> analytical and pragmatic segways for the other UN reviews.
>
> The WSIS plus 10 review is a historic opportunity therefore to review the
> state of democracy – and I qualify, the state of global democracy. Here –
> we have two tasks
>
>    1.
>
>    Re-interpreting human rights, equality and sustainability in the
>    information society. This is a dialogue that must inform the other UN
>    reviews and discussions on the crises of food, fuel, finance and climate
>    change, poverty and deprivation, inequality and insecurity, and violence
>    against women.
>
>
>    1.
>
>    The second task is to explore the favourable conditions that can make
>    the Internet an equaliser. As a global public good, the policy issues
>    pertaining to the Internet are simultaneously global and national.
>    Discussing the global policy issues around the Internet should be a
>    principal aim of the WSIS plus 10 review process.
>
>   We stand at cross-roads. The promise of community has never been
> greater in theory, but the risk to the collective never higher in the
> brazen pursuit of economic self interest and aggrandizement of power. For
> civil society the modus operandi of organising is clear. We need to ask how
> best we can sieze and use the decentralising possibilities of the network
> age to craft new forms of organisation; how we can define the core issues
> that reflect honestly our analysis of the crises. The WSIS plus 10 review
> process must indeed take a leaf out of Jo Freeman's essay - 'The tyranny of
> structurelessness'. Let not the ideals of democracy in multistakeholderism
> be reduced to shadowboxing – where emerging hierarchies are denied and
> those that wield power escape with no accountability.
>
> Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a
> means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work with
> and among people. We need to use this occasion of the WSIS plus 10 review
> to go back to the the touchstone of legitimacy – engage with people and
> communities to find out the conditions of their material reality and what
> seems to lie ahead in the information society. From here we need to build
> our perspectives and then come to multistakeholder spaces and fight and
> fight hard for those who cannot be present here.
>
>
>
>  1 <#13d200afa8157a12_sdfootnote1anc>Www.ITforChange.net
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/aeecdf0c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 04:37:53 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:37:53 +1200
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

As you can imagine, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
Consultations where the IGF is currently being discussed and Open
Consultations are underway.  You can access the live transcripts and
interventions and it is good to see some of our members interacting.

Kindly visit, http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=Day1-28Feb13 to access
the real time transcripts.

On another note, the issues and concerns that you raised as a collective
body has been factored into the Synthesis Document prepared by the IGF
Secretariat consolidating issues raised by stakeholders. I am attaching the
Synthesis paper.

The discussions are quite interesting and I invite you to follow the
Transcripts.

Warm Regards,

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/d54d4d13/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Synthesis Paper Feb 2013final.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 119870 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/d54d4d13/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 04:48:20 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:48:20 +1200
Subject: [governance] Re: Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCf8MPvm-thSxqzQ99h7-3JZpCukvTiPiF5vtZUV1GU2g@mail.gmail.com>

Norbert is speaking now.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> As you can imagine, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
> Consultations where the IGF is currently being discussed and Open
> Consultations are underway.  You can access the live transcripts and
> interventions and it is good to see some of our members interacting.
>
> Kindly visit, http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=Day1-28Feb13 to
> access the real time transcripts.
>
> On another note, the issues and concerns that you raised as a collective
> body has been factored into the Synthesis Document prepared by the IGF
> Secretariat consolidating issues raised by stakeholders. I am attaching the
> Synthesis paper.
>
> The discussions are quite interesting and I invite you to follow the
> Transcripts.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Tel: +679 3544828
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/80bad28a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb 28 04:59:25 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:59:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com>

Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> As you can imagine, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
> Consultations where the IGF is currently being discussed and Open
> Consultations are underway.  You can access the live transcripts and
> interventions and it is good to see some of our members interacting.
>
> Kindly visit, http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=Day1-28Feb13 to access
> the real time transcripts.

The remote participation moderator assures me that she is able to
accept remote interventions in English, French and Spanish.

However the translated audio streams into the six UN languages are
unfortunately available only in the room here, and not to remote
participants. This seems to be an unintentional, very unfortunate,
oversight in regard to how things were set up technically for remote
participation.

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 Feb 28 05:06:25 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:06:25 +1200
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiC1bS1mtaowy01Xss_2Ef4GSwGUYDCn6y9P2Wdz2PFGQA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As you can imagine, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
> > Consultations where the IGF is currently being discussed and Open
> > Consultations are underway.  You can access the live transcripts and
> > interventions and it is good to see some of our members interacting.
> >
> > Kindly visit, http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=Day1-28Feb13 to
> access
> > the real time transcripts.
>
> The remote participation moderator assures me that she is able to
> accept remote interventions in English, French and Spanish.
>
> However the translated audio streams into the six UN languages are
> unfortunately available only in the room here, and not to remote
> participants. This seems to be an unintentional, very unfortunate,
> oversight in regard to how things were set up technically for remote
> participation.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
[ST>] That's a real pity Norbert, can't be helped. I like what you raised
Norbert as well as ICC/Basis. Personally, I feel that "Science and
Technology for Development" is too limiting.

I am glad you mentioned "effective participation".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/066ad059/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb 28 05:15:02 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:15:02 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <CAJwbTiC1bS1mtaowy01Xss_2Ef4GSwGUYDCn6y9P2Wdz2PFGQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiC1bS1mtaowy01Xss_2Ef4GSwGUYDCn6y9P2Wdz2PFGQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALrvCLCe3YJwgzBtNumsTpwGX=S+oGQYvOO60a-MSM41U3T6QQ@mail.gmail.com>

Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:

> [ST>] That's a real pity Norbert, can't be helped. I like what you raised
> Norbert as well as ICC/Basis. Personally, I feel that "Science and
> Technology for Development" is too limiting.

I so strongly agree that I would have shouted that out immediately if
it wasn't so politically incorrect to do so. :-) I also think that
maybe I shouldn't ask to speak impolitely often.

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 Feb 28 05:17:06 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:17:06 +1200
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLCe3YJwgzBtNumsTpwGX=S+oGQYvOO60a-MSM41U3T6QQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJwbTiC1bS1mtaowy01Xss_2Ef4GSwGUYDCn6y9P2Wdz2PFGQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALrvCLCe3YJwgzBtNumsTpwGX=S+oGQYvOO60a-MSM41U3T6QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiCfV_achZwp+ZD8xowa+q4hMdmjaihhEXWppquKUwNOeQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [ST>] That's a real pity Norbert, can't be helped. I like what you raised
> > Norbert as well as ICC/Basis. Personally, I feel that "Science and
> > Technology for Development" is too limiting.
>
> I so strongly agree that I would have shouted that out immediately if
> it wasn't so politically incorrect to do so. :-) I also think that
> maybe I shouldn't ask to speak impolitely often.
>
>
[ST>] lol Norbert. Here is a suggested theme:

The Internet: Transforming Individuals, Communities, Economies and Nations
Threats, Challenges and Opportunities


> Greetings,
> Norbert
>



-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/b2bfa63e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb 28 05:40:33 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:40:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALrvCLAT5QdenShF7t7Wherx+riEn1sfjEMnvxO7aj-hDD=sPA@mail.gmail.com>

> On 2/28/13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As you can imagine, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
>> Consultations where the IGF is currently being discussed and Open
>> Consultations are underway.  You can access the live transcripts and
>> interventions and it is good to see some of our members interacting.
>>
>> Kindly visit, http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=Day1-28Feb13 to
>> access
>> the real time transcripts.
>
> The remote participation moderator assures me that she is able to
> accept remote interventions in English, French and Spanish.

WARNING: The email address given on the IGF website for making remote
interventions seems to be NOT actively monitored.

Remote interventions need to be made in webex chat.

Those who can't access webex chat for some reason could email me and
I'd paste into the chat to the remote moderator.

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  Thu Feb 28 05:57:32 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:57:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLAT5QdenShF7t7Wherx+riEn1sfjEMnvxO7aj-hDD=sPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALrvCLAT5QdenShF7t7Wherx+riEn1sfjEMnvxO7aj-hDD=sPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALrvCLBgqh4hYHkOw2E1WDDuwCmvjHT7ZQkwsDg8KyOiCT4gNw@mail.gmail.com>

On 2/28/13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> On 2/28/13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Kindly visit, http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=Day1-28Feb13 to
>>> access
>>> the real time transcripts.
>>
>> The remote participation moderator assures me that she is able to
>> accept remote interventions in English, French and Spanish.
>
> WARNING: The email address given on the IGF website for making remote
> interventions seems to be NOT actively monitored.

It turns out that there is someone besides the remote moderator
monitoring that email address, so it probably can be used.

Greetings,
Norbert

P.S. Sala's remote intervention was read out correctly, it was just
incorrect in the transcript. I've received a promise that the
transcript will be corrected.

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 06:27:27 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLAT5QdenShF7t7Wherx+riEn1sfjEMnvxO7aj-hDD=sPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com> <CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com> <CALrvCLAT5QdenShF7t7Wherx+riEn1sfjEMnvxO7aj-hDD=sPA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1362050847.4271.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

With reference to
the arguments of “Patrick Ryan, Google”, for the Open Consultation to encourage
the participation at IGF Forum, and increasing the Contribution from Government
and other stakeholders, Chair Kummar shown the concern about IGF limitation of resources,
(The Secretariat which is comprised by One Single Person). He also said that “resources
can also be given through in-kind contributions. There may also be volunteers
that come up to take on the task.”
Remote interventions
===============
Dear Norbert, (as
you encouraged for comments/Remote interventions), on behalf of IGC CS, can we offer our resources, Working
Group, volunteers to support IGF Secretariat to take up the task of enhance cooperation
and representation from maximum countries? At least we can motivate CS representatives. 

Thanks
 
Imran Ahmed Shah

>________________________________
> From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 15:40
>Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open Consultations
>  
>> On 2/28/13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As you can imagine, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
>>> Consultations where the IGF is currently being discussed and Open
>>> Consultations are underway.  You can access the live transcripts and
>>> interventions and it is good to see some of our members interacting.
>>>
>>> Kindly visit, http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=Day1-28Feb13 to
>>> access
>>> the real time transcripts.
>>
>> The remote participation moderator assures me that she is able to
>> accept remote interventions in English, French and Spanish.
>
>WARNING: The email address given on the IGF website for making remote
>interventions seems to be NOT actively monitored.
>
>Remote interventions need to be made in webex chat.
>
>Those who can't access webex chat for some reason could email me and
>I'd paste into the chat to the remote moderator.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/e8943870/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Feb 28 06:35:24 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:35:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <1362050847.4271.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALrvCLAT5QdenShF7t7Wherx+riEn1sfjEMnvxO7aj-hDD=sPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1362050847.4271.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CALrvCLCwWPE=zgx_8WKyUzT5drJqcoSf=3X0eyfqWTbAAn4YQA@mail.gmail.com>

> Dear Norbert, (as
> you encouraged for comments/Remote interventions), on behalf of IGC CS, can
> we offer our resources, Working
> Group, volunteers to support IGF Secretariat to take up the task of enhance
> cooperation
> and representation from maximum countries? At least we can motivate CS
> representatives.

Interesting idea... we've just broken for lunch, I'll try to catch
Chengetai and see if there's some way he can imagine in which this
might work practically.

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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 06:36:04 2013
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:36:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <1362050847.4271.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALrvCLAT5QdenShF7t7Wherx+riEn1sfjEMnvxO7aj-hDD=sPA@mail.gmail.com> <1362050847.4271.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4CzPxD-eAX5Xgt4M0yeh5r=UtYyqQeD8e4wHooai2R9Q@mail.gmail.com>

Good suggestion Imran.
Deirdre

On 28 February 2013 07:27, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

> With reference to the arguments of “Patrick Ryan, Google”, for the Open
> Consultation to encourage the participation at IGF Forum, and increasing
> the Contribution from Government and other stakeholders, Chair Kummar shown
> the concern about IGF limitation of resources, (The Secretariat which is
> comprised by One Single Person). He also said that “resources can also be
> given through in-kind contributions. There may also be volunteers that come
> up to take on the task.”******
> Remote interventions
> ===============
> Dear Norbert, (as you encouraged for comments/Remote interventions), on
> behalf of IGC CS, can we offer our resources, Working Group, volunteers to
> support IGF Secretariat to take up the task of enhance cooperation and
> representation from maximum countries? At least we can motivate CS
> representatives.
> Thanks
>
> Imran Ahmed Shah
>
>    *From:* Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, 28 February 2013, 15:40
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
> Consultations
>
> > On 2/28/13, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As you can imagine, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
> >> Consultations where the IGF is currently being discussed and Open
> >> Consultations are underway.  You can access the live transcripts and
> >> interventions and it is good to see some of our members interacting.
> >>
> >> Kindly visit, http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=Day1-28Feb13 to
> >> access
> >> the real time transcripts.
> >
> > The remote participation moderator assures me that she is able to
> > accept remote interventions in English, French and Spanish.
>
> WARNING: The email address given on the IGF website for making remote
> interventions seems to be NOT actively monitored.
>
> Remote interventions need to be made in webex chat.
>
> Those who can't access webex chat for some reason could email me and
> I'd paste into the chat to the remote moderator.
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/8bd80b74/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Feb 28 06:38:43 2013
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:08:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4CzPxD-eAX5Xgt4M0yeh5r=UtYyqQeD8e4wHooai2R9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com> <CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com> <CALrvCLAT5QdenShF7t7Wherx+riEn1sfjEMnvxO7aj-hDD=sPA@mail.gmail.com> <1362050847.4271.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAMz5XN4CzPxD-eAX5Xgt4M0yeh5r=UtYyqQeD8e4wHooai2R9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <90D68ADD-1B08-41EB-BB66-63A63C06FE35@hserus.net>

Seconding Imran's suggestion - but funding will still be an issue for that individual so if one of the NGOs reading this is able to commit a person that would be great.

--srs (iPad)

On 28-Feb-2013, at 17:06, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good suggestion Imran.
> Deirdre
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 06:44:50 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:44:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <CALrvCLCwWPE=zgx_8WKyUzT5drJqcoSf=3X0eyfqWTbAAn4YQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com> <CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com> <CALrvCLAT5QdenShF7t7Wherx+riEn1sfjEMnvxO7aj-hDD=sPA@mail.gmail.com> <1362050847.4271.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CALrvCLCwWPE=zgx_8WKyUzT5drJqcoSf=3X0eyfqWTbAAn4YQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1362051890.21926.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Thanks Norbert for acknowledgement,
Regards
Imran 
 
P.S.
Just sharing the conversation/dialogue here, for context reference of all other,
--------------------------------------
>> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS PATRICK RYAN..................
.........
IN A TYPICAL YEAR, THE IGF IS ATTENDED BY AROUND 2,000 PEOPLE FROM MORE THAN
130 COUNTRIES. MOST ALL OF THE GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD PRAISE THE VALUE OF
THE IGF. WE TALK ABOUT IT IN OTHER CONTEXT AT ITU AS THE ALTERNATIVE, BUT WITH
ONLY SIX GOVERNMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE IGF, THERE IS LOTS OF OPPORTUNITY.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY HALF OF THE COUNTRIES OF THE 130 COUNTRIES THAT ATTEND
IT, SHOULDN'T CONTRIBUTE IN SOME WAY. THOSE NUMBERS DON'T NEED TO BE HIGH ON AN
INDIVIDUAL BASIS, BUT SOME CONTRIBUTION IS IMPORTANT.
I REALIZE THAT GOVERNMENT BUDGETS ARE TIGHT, BUT I RESPECTFULLY CALL ON
GOVERNMENTS TO FIND A WAY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS EFFORT. THERE'S NO REASON
WHY WE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TURN THE NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
NINE TO 90 THIS YEAR.
SIMILARLY, THE
PRIVATE SECTOR NEEDS TO STEP UP. 
BUSINESSES LIKE GOOGLE BELIEVE IN THE VALUES OF THE IGF, BUT OUR BUSINESS
MODELS ALSO DEPEND ON THE SUCCESS OF THE INTERNET. IT CAN SOMETIMES BE A CHALLENGE
TO HAVE PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY SINGLE COMPANY OR ANY SINGLE
GOVERNMENT TO BE TOO LARGE BECAUSE OF THE PERCEPTIONS THAT CAN FLOW FROM THAT.
WE DON'T WANT THE IGF TO BE PERCEIVED TO HAVE BEEN BOUGHT BY ANY SINGLE COMPANY
OR GOVERNMENT. AT THE SAME TIME, THE NUMBER OF PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTORS SHOULD GREATLY
INCREASE, AND I SEE NO REASON WHY THE OVERALL NUMBER OF PRIVATE SECTOR
CONTRIBUTORS SHOULD NOT NINE FROM NINE TO 90 AS WELL. 
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF
WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS SIMPLE FUNDRAISING TASK, THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE IGF
WILL BE FAR GREATER THAN WE ARE NOW. AS WE ENTER THE EIGHTH YEAR, IT'S TIME TO
PUT OUR MONEY WHERE OUR MOUTH IS, TO WALK THE TALK, AND TO SHOW THAT WE SUPPORT
THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER ENVIRONMENT AND THAT WE MEAN IT.
I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FUNDING TAB ON THE IGF WEB SITE, WHICH
THANKS TO CHENGETAI AND THE WORK OF UNDESA PROVIDES A LOT MORE INFORMATION ON
HOW TO FUND. THANK YOU.
>>CHAIR KUMMER: THANK YOU, PATRICK. WHILE THIS WAS COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC,
I THINK IT WAS NEVERTHELESS VERY HELPFUL.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>CHAIR KUMMER: THIS IS ALSO, I THINK, A LOT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORKING
GROUP ON IGF IMPROVEMENTS ARE EXTREMELY HELPFUL, BUT -- AND NOT ALWAYS
RESOURCE-NEUTRAL. 
 
YES, OF COURSE IT WOULD BE
NICE TO DO THIS AND TO DO THAT, BUT THE SECRETARIAT, WHICH IS COMPRISED BY ONE
SINGLE PERSON, THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT THIS GUY CAN DO, AND THIS IS SOMETHING
WE NEED TO BEAR IN MIND.
 
SO I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST WHEN APPROACHING THE REPORT THAT WE MAKE MAYBE PROPOSALS
THAT ARE RESOURCE-NEUTRAL BUT THERE ARE OTHERS THAT NEED MORE RESOURCES, THAT
WE MAKE THE DISTINCTION AND LOOK AT THOSE THAT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AS A KIND OF LOW-HANGING FRUIT.

I MEAN, THEY -- "OKAY, THAT CAN BE DONE," BUT SOME OTHERS CANNOT BE
DONE UNLESS WE HAVE MORE RESOURCES. BUT RESOURCES CAN ALSO BE GIVEN THROUGH
IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS. THERE MAY ALSO BE VOLUNTEERS THAT COME UP TO TAKE ON THE
TASK.

--------------------------------------


>________________________________
> From: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>To: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 16:35
>Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open Consultations
>  
>> Dear Norbert, (as
>> you encouraged for comments/Remote interventions), on behalf of IGC CS, can
>> we offer our resources, Working
>> Group, volunteers to support IGF Secretariat to take up the task of enhance
>> cooperation
>> and representation from maximum countries? At least we can motivate CS
>> representatives.
>
>Interesting idea... we've just broken for lunch, I'll try to catch
>Chengetai and see if there's some way he can imagine in which this
>might work practically.
>
>Greetings,
>Norbert
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/0a583bf7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Thu Feb 28 07:06:24 2013
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:06:24 +0100
Subject: [governance] Transcript of discussion at IGF Open Consultations
Message-ID: <512F4840.8010205@cis-india.org>


Transcript from Pre-lunch discussions on Day 1 of the IGF Open
Consultations.


***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***.
.
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***.
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***.
igf open consultations.
28 february 2013.
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***ladies
and gentlemen, we're going to start in just a few minutes. there's a bit
of confusion concerning room numbers.
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***
>>chengetai masango: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. we're about to
start. can we please sit dow
ladies and gentlemen, can we sit down, please?
order. i'm going to start calling out names.
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: patrik?
ladies and gentlemen, can we start the meeting? we are a bit late as it
is.can we please be seated? need a gavel.
welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the open consultations.
thank you very much. before we open -- before we start the meeting, i
would just like to remind you that we do have transcription and remote
participation, so when you make an intervention, can you please make
sure that your microphone is on and you say your name and the
organization which you represent slowly and then you can go into your
intervention.
so before we start, i would like to hand over the floor to mr. slav on
check on, from undesa who would like to say a few words.
>> thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for honoring
madam chair (saying name) director of department of government and
social affairs with desa with your meaningful tribute. the kind
generosity of good friends like you has been a great help to all of us
during this very difficult time.
our desa family, and i would like myself to offer our most sincere
thanks for the messages and letters that you sent in the memory of madam
chen.
thank you very much for your loving support and i would like to ask you
a minute of silence in her memory.
[ moment of silence ] >> okay. let me continue. as you know, the
internet governance forum is a multistakeholder forum for policy
dialogue related to the internet governance issue, and it welcomes
governments, international organizations, business representatives, the
technical community, civil society organizations, and individuals to
participate in this event.
on behalf of the under-secretary-general of the united nations, mr. wu,
please allow me to start by welcoming you to all to the 2013 cycle of
the open consultations and the mag meetings on the internet governance,
and also thank you, unesco, for hosting this event.
two thousand- -- as desa is committed to improving the core ideas of the
igf and its open, inclusive, and multistakeholder platform.
2012 igf team in baku was determined by magazine as (indiscernible) and
social development. it's truly reflected the increased role of the
internet in the evolution of the various development components through
the world.
the capacity development opportunities the igf provides are truly
remarkable. let me take this time to thank the mag and mag members,
which provide extensive leadership and the guidance to past and future
forums.
i would like to thank also our general (indiscernible) community, those
contributions to the igf trust fund have enabled us to engage in
capacity-building program such as the igf fellowship program.
the funds also provide support for 11 mag members from developing
countries who are attending this event as well.
i invite everyone present here, either in person or remotely, to
actively take part in the -- all discussions regarding the themes and
substantive structure of the 2013 igf that is going to be supported and
hosted by the government of government of indonesia. it's all of us to
contribute to the sustainable development of the world we are living in.
let us also use this opportunity to discuss opportunities in
implementation of the action plan of the.
>>wsis: , wsis, and in the consultative process of the post 2015
development framework. thank you very much. okay. and now i would like
to give the floor to the honorary chair of the mag meeting, the
representative of the government of indonesia.
>>indonesia: thank you. excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies
and gentlemen, good morning.
my name is (saying name) from indonesia. first of all, i would like to
express a most welcome to all of you in paris for participating in this
first internet governance forum open consultations and mag meeting, the
preparation process of the eighth igf meeting 2013. as mentioned before,
it's planned to be held in bali, indonesia this year.
also on behalf of the entire community, i would like to express our
gratitude to the success of the republic of azerbaijan for hosting the
seventh igf meeting in 2012 last year.
let me also take this opportunity to thank the united nations department
of economic and social affairs, and igf secretariat (indiscernible) of
this igf open consultation and mag meeting.
it is, of course, a great honor for me to chair this meeting, together
with the interim chair, mr. markus kummer.
ladies and gentlemen, we have made some progress on promoting the
development agenda in igf but we think more has to be done in order to
make the internet play a very important role in promoting the human,
economic, and social development as a (indiscernible) and safe global
cyberspace. therefore, given the fact that the internet is developing so
fast -- most of the time faster than the development of the legal
aspects and the community readiness -- then we need to act fast as well,
to set up new strategies to ensure the positive development of
cyberspace at a national, regional, and international level.
the agenda of this meeting today is very important. it has to be our
priority to shape a fair agenda for the next igf that will be attractive
to all stakeholders and continue to ensure that the igf meeting is
productive and meaningful by addressing the key challenges that face all
interested stakeholders into this world.
the expected outcome of all our effort should lead to a more productive
internet world and at the same time minimizing all negative impacts.
excellencies, distinguished delegation, ladies and gentlemen, both the
positive and negative of the internet have been discussed on many
occasions, including the last three days of our wsis meeting.
last december, during the world conference of international
communication, wcit of itu in dubai (indiscernible) can be seen, of
course, in the (indiscernible) itu. even the itu itself even set up a
global security agenda, as well as promoting children protection globally.
as we are discussing today, many aspects of the internet during wsis,
our colleagues in u.n. meeting in vienna, this is their (indiscernible)
meeting, also discussing the way to protect the people, the it system.
basically all (indiscernible) including international cooperation for
cyberlegislation and so on.
many aspects of the internet will also be discussed in many other
meetings. in the next meeting in april, also the cross-border data
privacy will be also one of the main (indiscernible) group of apick in
indonesia. at the end of this year, wto will also discuss e-commerce
aspects of the internet and there are still many other discussions in
many other meetings. regarding the internet development. compleansdz,
distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, realizing that there are
so many aspects in the internet, some of them are even (indiscernible)
as well as very sensitive, i believe the next igf meeting, where
hopefully all of these aspects will be discussed comprehensively. it is
very important to the meeting that we can set up the agenda in shaping
the global internet in the near future.
for further discussion of the agenda, as well as the detailed program of
the next igf, i hereby hand the discussion process to the interim
chairman, mr. kummer. thank you very much.
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: thank you, mr. chairman. it is a great
honor for me come co-chair this meeting with direct general (saying
name), and i think this comes at an important juncture. as you rightly
pointed out, we have seen at the world conference on international
telecommunications in dubai that there were a number of concerns voiced
by developing countries and the igf could indeed be a forum to address
these concerns.
the secretariat has prepared an agenda for this meeting, and i would
like to recall the agenda and the purpose, desired main occupants.
first and foremost, i think we are called upon to discuss what could be
the theme for the meeting, and in the discussions leading up to this
meeting there were two different approaches. either we decide on the
theme now or we wait a little bit and we do it in a more (indiscernible)
fashion after workshop proposals have emerged so we can what is actually
of interest to the community.
so this is a decision we have to take how do we want to proceed with
identifying the theme for the next igf meeting.
also, the selection of workshops is an issue that always comes up again,
and the secretariat has said it would be nice to have clear and easily
understood workshop selection criteria.
also, in the contributions, there are a lot of talks about the number of
main sessions, how long they should be, and what format they should
take, and then the overall number of workshops, again, their duration,
and connection to the themes and connection to the main sessions.
we have had contributions, they're all posted on the web site, and the
secretariat has prepared this paper and i will ask chengetai to sum up
the contributions we have received.
please, chengetai.
>>chengetai masango: thank you very much, markus. i'll just give a brief
summary of the paper. as we go along during the day, i will give a more
detailed summary according to the topics that are going to be discussed
so that we don't discuss everything now.
[ audio interference, please mute ]
>>chengetai masango: the secretariat called for contributions taking
stock of the baku meeting and also looking forward to the 2013 igf meeting.
we received a total of 15 written contributions and also we received
some suggestions on the igf web site discussion board on the main themes
and subthemes for igf 2013.
all of these inputs can be found in their entirety on the igf web site.
some contributions focus on evaluating the baku meeting while others
cons state trade on their recommendation for the 2013 meeting.
many expressed gratitude for the government of azerbaijan for the
successful hosting of the seventh igf meeting. the seventh igf meeting
was praised for continuing thigf's tradition of successfully bringing
together an extensive range of leaders from the many communities
interested in internet governance and providing a truly unique
opportunity to have an open discussion on a wide range of issues.
contributions stress the need for improvement in 2013 in the following
areas: main sessions. participants should increase, are focus should be
narrowed and panelists should be diversified. these are just the general
comments.
workshops. the amount of workshops should be reconsidered. workshop
selection should be made more stringent, and workshop outcomes should be
improved.
for the other sessions, the other sessions should receive increased
attention and emphasis.
for participation, they need to improve participation from developing
countries, women, youth, et cetera.
requirements. this requires an increase in outreach and participant
funding options.
capacity-building activities during the igf meetings should be increased.
and social media use should be increased.
for local issues such as -- there were comments on the local issues such
as internet connectivity, venue location, the layout, food and drink,
and also coffee. it was stressed that it's important and should be made
available.
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: we have taken all of that into
consideration planning the 2013 meeting.
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: as i said, these are just the -- a
short briefing and i'll discuss in more finer detail the requirements
under the specific headers that markus will...
>>chair kummer: okay. thank you, chengetai, for this.
now, a question.
how do we proceed? i wonder whether there are any sort of more general
statements or do we dive right into the substance? in the past, there
were quite a few more general statements so i would leave that
opportunity open.
at the outset, i would suggest not diving too much into the logistics.
the logistics is very much something between the u.n. and the host
country. the u.n. has very clear criteria, but the u.n. cannot impose
the way how to do it to a host country as long as it is within reason.
we have taken note of some of the comments. clearly, i think there's a
strong preference to have the venue of the meeting not too far away, but
the u.n. cannot impose that to a host country because many, many u.n.
conferences are held in that fashion, and that's -- as long as it is up
to u.n. standards, that has to be accepted.
the same thing, internet, yes, we do understand it is important, but it
is not easy, and big organizations like the igf, icann, have also found
it not always that easy, but what they now usually do is they hire a
specialized company -- this is not resource-neutral. this costs quite a
lot of money. the secretariat can rely on advice from highly qualified
engineers who have gained experience in advising host countries. you
know, patrik faltstrom, many of you know him, he has a lot of experience
in doing that, but things can happen. it's not -- cannot -- you can
never guarantee that it works perfectly, but we are fully aware that
this is an important issue.
and, and, and, and i think the u.n. always asks the organizer to make
sure that there's quick and cheap food available, including coffee, but
again, it is the host country that has to organize this. free food is
not a criteria. it's not required for the host country. nobody will ask
you to provide free food. but sometimes host countries are generous and
do provide it.
so to cut a long story short, i would suggest not diving into these
logistics issues. we have taken note of your preferences and i'm sure
the host country has also listened.
indonesia has a long experience in organizing international meetings,
and i'm sure we're in safe hands.
so who would like to take the floor? yes, parminder.
>>kanwaljeet singh: i'm parminder from a ngo ig for change and i thought
i would take this -- which i wanted to make -- actually ask a question on.
i would like to know what is the status of the report of the working
group on improvements to the igf, because this report was presented
quite a long time back and has now been confirmed by the u.n. general
assembly and in my understanding, the chief actor or at least one of the
chief actors to implement it is the mag, and whether there is a program
to do that, whether there is a timetable or whether the consultation is
going to be involved about how to go ahead about it. so i just wanted
clarifications on that. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank
>>chair kummer: thank you. the united nations general assembly has taken
note of the report and now collectively we are supposed to take that
into account when planning the next meeting and it is also on the
agenda. chengetai, would you like to comment?
>>chengetai masango: yes. it has been approved the working group report
is part of the input from this meeting. if you check on the web site, it
is there. and it has been integrated into our agenda and it is taken the
point given there as if there were general inputs from people coming in.
so we are paying particular attention to the working group report.
>>chair kummer: did you want to continue, parminder. i see the united
states of america has asked for the floor.
>>united states of america: thank you very much. good morning. the
united states would like to reiterate its full support for the internet
governance forum and we believe the igf is the epitome of the process is
that have make it an economic engine. i don't need to tell it to this
audience. i felt it necessary. it provides the premiere opportunity for
governments in to be civil society technical community to address
internet issues in a broad, creative and collaborative manner. u.s.
would also like to congratulate azerbaijan, the igf secretariat, the
multistakeholder advisory group and the stakeholder participants for a
successful igf in 2012 that continue to build the impressive record for
discussion and dialogue in the information society. we thank you
indonesia for taking on that important task and hosting all the
stakeholders in bali later this year.
our observation is that the discussion matures each year and the
dialogue deepens, taking advantage of the opportunity of the annual igf
as well as the national and regional igf for the discussion to be candid
and timely.
we also note with appreciation that contributions of governments,
industry, technical communities, civil society, alike to the cstd
working group woks to the igf. we support effort while preserving a
multistakeholder model format on which it depends and the absence of
negotiated outputs. we want to highlight the recommendses that can be
implemented in the lead-up up to bali including improving the visibility
of the igf and all stakeholder groups and around the globe.
strengthening the secretariat, including its funding, acknowledging the
contributions of the host countries for their effort in the significant
undertaking it is to host the igf as well as the stakeholders for their
active participation and input and improving the participation in the
igf and its preparatory process especially from developing countries.
with everybody, we look forward to discussing themes and subthemes that
will make for a dynamic and thought provoking forum in 2013.
cross-cutting issues are inevitable and we encourage the accommodation
of those cross-cutting issues and questions and workshops.
in her o with the unesco and the plus 10 meeting, the secretariat of
state noticed wsis is a social issue, a human rights issue and, quote,
it is an economic issue as an open, reliable and trusted internet sparks
greater le rye built and greater efforts in innovation.
so in that vein and for your consideration, we suggest addressing
science and technology for development, s and t for d, if you will, and
its contribution for economic growth perhaps as a cross-cutting or
subtheme but we look forward to the discussion today and ongoing
preparation for igf bali.
just on a personal note, of course, it is wonderful to be here again and
to be here as a government representative this time. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. brazil.
>>brazil: thank you, mr. chair. i would like to take this opportunity as
well to organize this meeting, for convening this meeting. i think it is
very important to start good preparation for the bali meeting. i would
like to reaffirm brazil's full support for the work of igf. we think igf
can present a unique contribution to this process. we are engaged in the
review of the wsis implementation. we think in that regard we have
highlighted in reaction to a question that was put forward before, that
in bali, we are already looking at implementing the recommendation that
contain the working group on (indiscernible) report. we think it is very
important that we start implementing at a very early stage and very glad
to see the invitation is to take place in bali.
we concur with science and technology development should be one of 15,
so we would be very glad to look into and give more emphasis to this
theme in the igf work. and last, but not least, again i'll like to just
in this forum to inform delegates that brazil has put forward its
ability to host in 2015. we are, of course, waiting for a final decision
on this matter, but this is something that we would be very glad if we
could again host the meeting in this very important year in which it
would be a wrapup of the second phase of igf. thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you for your intervention. we look forward
speaking for all participants to coming back to brazil in 2015.
icc/basis, you asked for the floor? no?
okay. are there no more general statements? then we can dive straight
into the agenda and basically issue number 1 on the agenda, the
secretariat has published to discuss the main themes and subthemes of
the igf 2013. science and technology for development has been mentioned
as maybe a cross-cutting theme and that has the merit of linking the igf
actually closer to the cstd.
but before -- we have also in the synthesis paper various themes have
been listed that have been proposed. but i think there is a binary
decision we have to take before we go into the substance. do we want to
take a decision now or do we want to take it in light of the workshop
proposals when we see in may what are the themes that are proposed from
the community in a bottom-up fashion? there is a merit to both
approaches. if we decide on a theme now, it would guide people who are
thinking of proposing a workshop, going in one direction. if we wait,
then we would, i think, act in a true democratic, bottom-up fashion and
we would then decide on the theme in may in the light of all the
workshop proposals.
comments on which approach to choose? yes, martin?
>> nominet: martin boyle from nominet. i, like you, have got very little
preference between whether we set a theme now or whether we do it in the
light of proposals. but i still think it would be particularly helpful
to those who are developing proposals to have an idea of the direction
travel of what it is seen as being at least general themes in which we
could or should be developing.
and, in particular, for me one of the things that has come out from in
particular the wcit discussions before christmas is that we should be
trying to put a bit more of a practical spin, a practical outcome, a
practical thinking, conclusions that come out that can then contribute
to help people make the decisions that they will then subsequently make.
so if we choose later, i would still like to get down on to the record
that we should be trying to get some practical support and activity and
help for people who have to then make decisions. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that.
icc/basis, ayesha hassan.
>>icc-basis: thank you, ayesha hassan for icc/basis. i think it would be
helpful for us to collect the ideas at this consultation and see what
kinds of subthemes and main themes people are focused on for this year.
i share nominet's input regarding a focus on practical outputs or take
aways, et cetera. i think if we can collect some ideas here today, we
may be in a position to shape an overarching theme which in some ways
would be able to promote the igf in bali earlier given in past years the
host country has benefited from having an overarching theme to start
promotional materials on the web site, et cetera. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. and listening to both of you, i think -- oh,
yes, norbert.
>> civil society internet caucus: (saying name) talking about whether we
should fix the theme now or later, this is not a question that we have
had a chance to ponder really. one thing i would note though, there is a
great value in having integrity in the sense of the theme that is
obviously anounsed actually fitting what is going on at the igf meeting.
i would -- trying to be not too politically incorrect -- still say that
internet governance for sustainable development in the various aspects
that were mentioned at the last igf theme is a wonderful theme. but what
was actually accomplished at the igf did not actually match that
wonderful theme. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. annriety.
>>anriette esterhuysen: i was one of those who proposed the idea of
developing the main theme afterwards. there are definitely different
ways of doing it. possibly this year it is too late. but the reason why
that occurred to me as a more appropriate way of doing it was because we
spent approximately 1 1/2 days at last year's mag meeting arguing about
what the main theme should be because the issue becomes very split have
politicized. so, in fact, what the mag then does is to spend time on
trying to achieve consensus on what the main theme should be rather than
really trying to understand and absorb and process what the igf
community expresses as its priority.
>>chair kummer: thank you. lee, please?
>>council of europe: lee (saying name). just one pragmatic idea about
taking stock really. there is a lot of things that are being discussed
now. i used the example of, for example, two weeks ago in vienna there
was a meeting on internet 2013 on issues. there was a lot of events
throughout the year which have a foreign policy dimension to them. the
european dialogue has already started its planning process. we already
have a draft outlined to be discussed so i think it is very important
that we try to take stock of what's already been discussed. i would
really appreciate some information collected together about what
national igfs are thinking about if they had meetings and these sorts of
things.
>>chair kummer: izumi and then marilyn.
>> izumi: a member of (saying name) and civil society. i would like to
integrate the main theme in a substantial manner. however, given the
time this year, it is slightly earlier than last year's one, we may need
to conclude early. so what i would like to see is some kind of
discussion today not spending too much time and taking some kind of
temperature or the preferences of the defined stakeholders and maybe we
try to come up online to narrow down to choose from, say, some of the
major candidates kind of themes. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. marilyn.
>>marilyn cade: thank you, my name is marilyn cade. i would like to
support some of the comments i'm hearing about the importance of sort of
generally taking stock of the options and the -- maybe the driving
concepts that are coming out. i serve as the chief catalyst for the igf
usa and certainly one of the things that has always been very helpful to
us as an initiative has been being able to feed into and benefit from
the igf. it would be extremely helpful, i think, to the national and
regional igfs to have a general understanding of the direction of the
theme and subthemes will go in.
of course, they reflect both national and regional perspectives and
won't be completely dedicated to that. but i think it helps us to
support the bottom-up input process as well.
>>chair kummer: thank you. and i'm tempted to say the other way around
would equally helpful, that those are here that organize national and
regional meetings, what are issues of concerns to them.
but i think listening to the various statements, it doesn't seem to be
an either/or question. it is rather a hybrid that seems to be an
emerging consensus, that we don't need to agree right now on what is the
main theme but that we listen a bit and see which direction it could
take and then we finalize that at the next meeting.
raul, please?
>>raul echeberria: thank you, mr. chair. in latin america, we usually
organize regional preparatory igf meetings at the end of august or more
or less sometime in then. usually with meetings here in the room, there
are a lot of of people involved in the organization of those meetings.
but i think that's -- organizing the meetings in that part of the year,
it is good for the regional purposes, but it is not enough good in order
to influence the agenda and the main topics of the local igf. probably
we could encourage the people who organize these kind of meetings around
the world to do that early in the year in order to produce
recommendations that could be taken in consideration by the mag and the
organizers and probably at the time of the may meeting every year.
that's an idea that came to my mind now. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that suggestion. i think that's also in
line what others have said, that we maybe ought to revisit the whole
planning process maybe to make it more organic.
adam, yes, please.
>> adam peake, glocom. i was wondering if we could hear the proposal
that is have been coming in from the different stakeholders that have
been staying on this issue. and then perhaps just take it to the mag
tomorrow where they might give a very brief bit of thought to this
responding to those proposals as they have been submitted and put it in
the program paper as a general outline of what this is generally
suggested and take it for a comment to come back in may and then the
program paper would give some general direction to people and we
wouldn't have to worry about wordsmithing which is annreitte's concern
which is a hybrid approach listening to what people have said in
consultation and then asking for more thought later.
>>chair kummer: yes, i will ask chengetai to read out the proposals that
have been made. i mean, what i heard today is also to have a more
hands-on practical approach that was, i think, martin and aayesha. and i
myself was struck that spam became an enormous issue and in the igf
context, we dealt with spam back in athens in 2006 and it fell off the
table. obviously people that were in athens were not the people in
dubai. and we may revisit an issue like spam which may not be the top
concern of people assembled here in this room, that we have to take into
account that there are people out there who consider this a major issue.
chengetai, please read out the proposals we received.
>>chengetai masango: thank you, markus.
proposals for the main themes received were internet governance for
openness, sharing and improving the lives of all humanity. human rights
and the implications for internet governance. public interest principles
for the internet. shaping global principles for the internet. new
service oriented approach in the world based on the internet of services
and internet of things. the most popular proposals for possible
subthemes included issues pertaining to human rights and principles,
human rights, enhanced cooperation and internet for kids. the report of
the working group on improvements to the igf recommended that a set of
quality questions should guide the discussions and debates in the main
sessions and throughout the annual igf meetings with a goal to then
report the outcomes of such debates by stating clearly the convergent
and divergent views and opinions on the guiding questions.
some contributors gave suggestions on possible policy questions that
could be considered. how to maintain net neutrality as the key
architectural principle of the global internet and what should be the
mechanisms and executions involved in this process?
what kind of general internet principles or principles for internet
governance can frame relatively coordinated and harmonious policy
responses to key global internet-related issues that impact global
public interest.
how to maintain the principles referring to -- referred to by some as
net neutrality, that the price which an isp charges their customer for
exchanging data packets via the internet shall not depend on the content
of the data packets nor shall it depend on the party with whom the
packets are exchanged. how shall (indiscernible) architectural
principles for best service for all global traffic in the internet be
preserved? that's the end of the principles.
and then all proposals on main themes and subthemes are listed in the
synthesis paper, so are the proposals for the main themes or subthemes
-- oh, sorry.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. some of it went already into the
main session. i think right now we are still at the higher level of main
themes. what i heard this morning i think in both the interventions of
brazil and the u.s. were science and technology also for development
which i think is interesting in that it so far links the igf maybe
closer to the work of the commission of science and technology for
development and the economic growth, the internet as an engine for
growth and innovation. this is also something that was mentioned. i
think i sense there is a general agreement that it makes much sense to
listen a bit which direction we could go without taking a final decision
so that we have a sense of direction.
indonesia, please.
>>indonesia: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm (saying name) from indonesia
on behalf of indonesia delegation. it is also a multistakeholder
advisory group member and civil society. we proposed some keywords that
may be could -- would be formulated in igf main theme such as
development, internet (indiscernible), multistakeholder, cyber society
and (indiscernible) cyberspace. we are also offering some of the main
themes (indiscernible) that will be used in the next igf as follows:
internet governance multistakeholders, two words, information society
through participation. the reason behind this, the multistakeholder
participation is the process of internet governance requires a brief of
the review of the concept of governance itself. governance can be
understood as the formation and operation of the joint rule of the game
which define the actors and their responsibilities in the collaboration
to work toward common goals and in resolving any disputes that arise.
government arrangements are open, translated into a partnership between
(indiscernible) and (indiscernible) actors.
secondly is internet governance is the (indiscernible) of the
development goals. this issue of the mpg is to be the benchmark of all
the countries involved in the internet governance forum. this issue is
particularly (indiscernible) because in the near future, there will be
an evaluation to see the achievement of (indiscernible) throughout the
world.
and the third theme is internet governance to achieve sustainable
development through people participation.
and the last -- the fourth theme is internet governance for sustainable
development through (indiscernible) and secure cyberspace. thank you
very much.
>>chair kummer: yes, please.
>> my name is mary anne frank lynn. i'm speaking on me boo half of the
principle price coalition. while we talk about substantive themes, i
would like to read a brief -- an abbreviated version of the statement we
sent in because we believe strongly that this next igf needs to be
talking about substantive outcomes. so if i may turn to my screen for a
minute.
we think this would be a very worthwhile approach to be focusing on what
needs to be done rather than on who will do it and which -- so that gets
us out of constant discussions over a day a half as anretta pointed out.
we think it would be worthwhile on developing principles on internet
governance as touchstones. thee are general terms we are proposing that
can guide global internet governance to help take away required public
interest policies and other activities in this area.
it will give us important leaves on what kind of constitutional
framework best suit a global agreement on internet governance and we
think -- and we hear, and we can see quite visibly this is the hot topic
coming up to wsis in 2015.
we also note in our statement that in vilnius 2010 this was made clear
by the chair's report. we also noted in the statement that
(indiscernible) has been leading the way with truly multistakeholder
process by which principles can be moved forward into legal terms. and
it is time for the igf to have the courage of its conviction and have a
theme that can include principles as a touchstone that can allow also
subthemes for people to explore these particular priorities and interests.
so in that sense, i would just finish now to say that we propose as i
have just said the overall theme of bali, the internet principles,
possible overall themes being put forward public principles or shaping
global principles for the internet because we know that titles are
important. we would like to make that very clear now. principles for the
internet. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. you rightly pointed out there is a tradition
in the igf to have this discussion. we have that in vilnius, also last
year in baku, taking stock had a strong segment on principles.
i see apc and norbert again, apc, please.
>> apc: good morning, my name is (saying name) from apc. we just wanted
to make a few contributions for this topic. a general point on the igf
improvements, apc propose that is an implementation form is formed to
promote the recommendations of the cstd working group on igf
improvements. such a group can be made up a combination of mag members
and volunteers from the igf community. an ideal number would be around
10 people.
we suggest there is flexibility in terms of main session themes. some of
the traditional themes are necessary such as emerging issues and taking
stock. but other themes can change from year-to-year based on priorities
that the igf addresses. in in slight, we propose that the igf in 2013
focuses on the following theme. we leave it to the mag to decide whether
this should be dealt through main themes or roundtables but we do
believe it would be useful to use the entire last day of the igf as
synthesizing the discussion that took place at workshops. the following
themes for the igf 2013 or topics, enhanced cooperation, support input
from ball. the igf can complement the efforts of the cstd working group
on enhanced cooperation.
number two, human rights. the apc proposes that human rights become one
of the main themes for the igf. this seems to be a natural step forward
considering the prominence of human rights at the igf, s
>> it will facilitate a substantive continuation of the debate,
particularly around diverse ways in which the technical and policy
decisions surrounding internet governance contend with human rights. the
mag and workshop organizers should include new human rights issues
areas, such as anonymity and less talked about (indiscernible) lgbt
rights. approaching issues such as network neutrality, affordable access
(indiscernible) and also part of the -- thirdly, internet governance
principles. apc supports a decision put forward by the internet rights
and principles coalition that the igf should provide a space for
establishing whether there is consensus on what principles should
underpin public interest internet policy and policymaking processes.
many institutions are framing their principles, such as the council of
europe and the oecd. at national level governments are establishing
principles that can be used to frame national policymaking.
with the naming of these principles are how they will be applied and how
they relate to existing global agreements and standards is still not
clear. we, therefore, support the proposal that igf 2013 addresses these
topics in more depth than previous igfs have done and what public
(indiscernible) principles for the internet or shaping global principles
for internet governance be considered as main themes.
fourth, how to deal with spam animal wear.
there's an area where capacity-building, and policy issues can be dealt
with.
and finally, to outcome or to not.
[ laughter ]
apc believes it is a discussion that should be put to bed. when mag
members debate whether the igf should produce outcomes or not, it is
doing just that. outcomes are emerging in multiple ways, in the form of
follow-up events, better understanding of stakeholder groups' concerns,
informal negotiations of (indiscernible) and upcoming policy processes,
brainstorm solutions for difficult policy problems, suggestions for
research and capacity-building programs, statements from presents and so o.
these are negotiated agreements but they might eventually lead to such
agreements. the more interesting question is how these outcomes should
be captured and communicated.
this is a task the mag must take seriously.
these are not negotiated agreements but they might very well inform such
agreements in the future.
thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. what is the order? i think norbert is next
and then we have martin from nominet, india, and brazil.
okay. quite a number of speakers. norbert, please.
>> thank you. again, norbert (saying name) for the civil society
internet governance caucus, the intervention from the internet rights
and principles coalition resonates very strongly with what we have in
mind, as we have put forward not only a general theme as it was read,
human rights and the implications for internet governance which we
suggested at the main theme, but we also suggest some subthemes, which
are: effective participation of all stakeholders in internet governance
and internet rights and principles and internet for kids, which we
suggest as overall subthemes.
and i would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at the
igf, especially in recent years of emphasizing human rights and it would
be very valuable to take that forward in an even more outcome-oriented
and implementation-oriented and moving it from the talking about it to
actually getting it done stage, and i would very much appreciate if the
program for the igf specifically encourages this kind of practical side
to it to move the igf from being very much a talk and social event to
something that has a very strong practical policy impact. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. before continuing the discussion, we were
told by the interpreters to speak a little bit slower. especially when
reading something. and also, after speaking, not to forget to turn the
microphone off.
now we have already moved in many ways forward from the subthemes into
how to do it, but this is all relevant to the discussion. we have still
quite a number of speakers.
i think martin is next, then india, brazil, icc/basis, bertrand, andrea.
okay. martin?
>>martin boyle: thank you, chair, and we've heard a lot of issues being
raised around the table, and i must admit i agree with the relevance and
the importance of an awful lot of the subjects that have been raised.
i thought it might be useful to -- as somebody suggested that we should
take input from national and regional igfs to say something about some
very preliminary thinking that we've done in the u.k. about -- about
issues, and one of the things that interested me about that exercise was
that we came up with quite a lot of consensus on just a few topics.
the topics included cybersecurity, but very firmly put in the framework
of human rights, and this came up in a lot of our discussions that human
rights not being seen stand-alone, bolt-on, extra, or sitting in its own
little group talking about human rights issues but to try and bring the
understanding of human rights, of privacy, of freedom of expression into
discussions on other topics, and doing that on cybersecurity was a very,
very big and important area for doing this.
and of course cybersecurity is a massively large subject.
we also identified doing -- trying to do some convergence, trying to
understand better the principles in which we work, was again seen as
something that was worth doing, but again, i think that this is seen
very much as providing a base, a starting point, for further
deliberations on other issues, to give ourselves a better understanding
of where we're going, and certainly if we look at practical outcomes,
practical thinking, helping people make decisions, then starting off
with principles is a very important thing to do.
and then of course we had youth engagement and things like identity
management and building trust.
so i've run through those last ones very quickly. i'm sure they'll come
up again in more detail.
but where that then led me for thinking about where we should go as the
-- an overarching theme, and i think somebody -- and i forget now who --
suggested that the overarching theme could well be the internet as an
engine for growth, for me that seemed to be encapsulating an awful lot
of discussion that we had had in the u.k. as being -- well, you know,
that's where we would like to get to so long as we understand these
other issues, these other themes that feed into doing that.
i liked the idea that the u.s. came up with for science and technology
for development as a subtheme -- sorry, as the main theme, but i don't
see that as being out of step with the internet as an engine for growth,
and, so in fact, i wonder whether we could go for something like the
internet as an engine for growth, and then a second line of science and
technology for development, and whether that gives us a good framework
in which to to build in a lot of the rather more detailed work that
contributes to achieving that. thank you, chair.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that.
india? (saying name), please.
>>india: thank you, chair. this is (saying name) from the government of
india.
first of all, having taken the microphone, i just would like to extend
our thanks and -- to the government of azerbaijan for hosting the
seventh igf, and to congratulate the government of indonesia for being
our next host.
i would like to just touch upon a small point, and that is, i would like
to express support for the idea from the government of the u.s. and
brazil for science and technology for development, and then to slightly
suggest a little change to say "science and technology in internet," to
make it a little more focused, because that may help many people to join
in.
secondly, the idea to bring in science and technology as the
cross--cutting, overarching theme maybe a little early, and my minister
has proposed a theme in the igf baku. there he has mentioned the theme
of transforming the internet to econet, and i would like to repropose
the same for consideration for this next igf.
and then in the end, to suggest whether the two issues which are very
important to india, too. the issue of science and technology in the
internet, the issue of internet principles, and the issue of enhanced
cooperation, whether they could be considered as main themes for the
eighth igf.
thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. b brazil?brazil.
[ audio interference, please mute ]
>>brazil: thank you very much, mr. chairman. regarding the themes that
are being suggested, brazil certainly agrees that the issue of
international internet governance principles would be an interesting
discussion to take place in the igf, as it has been one of the themes of
the workshops that we have here in this -- in the meeting that ended
yesterday and we think there is a great road that is open for the
discussion of this issue and the igf is certainly a place where it could
be discussed.
we concur with the suggestion from our colleague from india, but i
understand that her suggestion does not delete the word (indiscernible).
[ audio interference, please mute ] >>brazil: (indiscernible) is a very
important (indiscernible) for the debate that we want to -- to have.
there's another point that i would like to raise, not exactly a theme,
but i concur with the colleagues that spoke before me on the -- on the
value that the -- the discussions that we are having here today and
tomorrow on defining the issues and the themes for the global igf, the
value that these decisions will have for the national processes. the
national igfs and the local -- the regional igfs that could benefit from
this sort of (indiscernible) of issues that would be also a guide for
the organization of these national and regional igfs as deemed appropriate.
but we would like to raise the opposite point. i mean, i think the -- it
would benefit if we also took a look and thought on spaces in the global
igf where the regional and the maybe national igf, as considered
appropriate, could sort of have a venue where to -- to -- to summarize
and also to offer their perspectives that the process that they had
regionally and nationally to the global igf.
i think it's the case of many countries, and it certainly is the case in
brazil, that we would like to have all the processes in a more organic
manner. i mean, the national igfs, the regional igfs, and the global
igfs, and then if we had this two-way approach, i mean, the local and
regional benefitting from the things that are decided here, and on the
other hand, having a space in the global igf to express their views and
their conclusions and so on. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i think this is also an agenda item on how to
create these better linkages for -- i mean, we have already touched on
elements of overall organization, outcome, and so these are important
elements but we definitely will revisit them, and i suggest maybe
closing the list of speakers on the main theme issue. i still have a
fairly long list on that, so -- but i mean, the mag can also revisit
that, but i think there is an agreement that we don't need to decide on
this now, and there are some strong statements coming out, principles i
hear that -- by many speakers. also the economic aspect, science and
technology for development, that don't necessarily make up -- it's not
the overall theme, but they are here and i think they will guide the
direction.
human rights has also been mentioned, so -- and cybersecurity has been
mentioned, and there is an overall, i think, also general thrust that we
should think a little bit more about having hands-on sessions that
provide practical guidance. spam animal wear, for instance, was
mentioned as best practices, and also document outcome, but this will
take us further in the discussion and i would now go back to my list of
speakers.
>> thank you.
>>chair kummer: (indiscernible) andrea from (indiscernible) u.s., mary,
finland, council of europe. is there anybody else who would desperately
like to add something? yes, i can see canada and with that, can we close
the list on -- u.s. yes, yes, sorry, i have you down. i did not read you
out.
[ laughter ] >>chair kummer: and yes, paypal, bill smith, okay. and --
yes. mathieu shares, yeah. okay.
all right.
icc/basis.
>>icc/basis: thank you very much. we support the prior comments about
perhaps framing the main theme in terms of the internet for development
and growth, and we feel like this can be used as an umbrella-type
concept to wrap in a lot of the discussion this morning.
we really feel like the -- the igf has a unique ability to talk about
the internet as a fundamental catalyst and engine for transforming
economies and for transforming societies, and that can be a nice linkage
of all the different things that we've heard today.
one point that we wanted to emphasize is, sometimes the igf is always
looking around the corner at the next issue, but we think it's extremely
important when we look around at the broader landscape that the igf
tackle the fundamental issues of investment, infrastructure, deployment,
the practical issues of how countries and how societies are going to
deploy the internet and get access to the internet in the first place.
secondly, to take on some of the issues around security and the
practical issues of operating the internet and making it safe and
secure. and third, dealing with the transform able impact as others have
mentioned that the (indiscernible) science and technology can make on
society. we think that can be wrapped into both economic growth,
responsible social development, as well as the human rights issues that
we heard today.
the internet has a transformational effect on all fronts, and what we
are urging is that there be a balanced approach to this igf that really
incorporates the unique breadth that the igf has to offer in assessing a
global view on both these fundamental aspects of deploying the internet,
as well as dealing with the practical concerns with operating it, and
then finally the -- the important social impacts that the internet has
on society.
and we look around at the landscape and think that the igf has to both
assert its own space and -- and not let other organizations or processes
fill that space, but it also has to look around and figure out how can
we, as others have said, provide valuable inputs into others, and the
unesco meeting this week was a great example of how there can be a great
interrelationship between the igfs and other organizations.
so i think the positive thinking we've heard this morning on all of
these things can be very helpful in thinking about the main themes as we
do our work this week. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. robert guerra, please.
>>robert guerra: this is robert guerra from the citizen lab at the
university of toronto.
chair, thank you for giving me a few minutes.
i'd like to just comment on some earlier points that you made. first of
all, in regards to the igf being mentioned in other spaces such as the
wcit, i think if there are other spaces where the igf has been mentioned
as a space that key issues can be discussed, it would be interesting to
make a list of those issues to make sure that everyone is aware of them,
and so they can be on the agenda possibly to be discussed.
i think in regards to whether setting the overall theme now or in may, i
think as we're going forward now, identifying possible themes and then
having a call i think would be good, but i think identifying some issues
and getting feedback on that, i think, could be useful.
i'd also like to echo something that hasn't been mentioned by some of
the other commentators, and that is the -- the delegation from indonesia
did make comments and they're the host country and the country from the
region, and they have done a consultation and put forward ideas from
consultation of different stakeholders, so i think we should give those
considerable thought.
and from the perspective of the citizen lab, i think the idea of science
and technology for development is definitely one that we would support.
and it might be worthwhile also to talk about cybernorms and the right
approach to some of the issues as well.
thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. bertrand de la chapelle.
>>bertrand de la chapelle: bertrand de la chapelle from the internet and
jurisdiction project.
i've listened carefully to the different comments today.
i would like to suggest that we take a moving picture, rather than just
a still picture.
the igf is now entering its -- approaching its eighth annual meeting,
and if i look at how things have evolved in the discussion, the igf has
produced a remarkable outcome that was very visible during this week
here. i.e., progress on sensitive topics.
if i look at how the issue of enhanced cooperation and principles were
discussed six years ago, it's very simple. six or seven years ago, it
was not even possible to put them on the agenda.
yesterday and the day before yesterday, there were two workshops on
principles and two workshops on enhanced cooperation. both of them have,
in my view -- and i hope it's shared by other participants -- displayed
a remarkable move forward in terms of the desire of the stakeholders to
work together on those issues and to address those issues.
i think, therefore, we should recognize, irrespective of the other
discussion on main sessions, workshops, and so on, that there are two
key threads that have emerged as an outcome of the discussions in the --
in the igf, and that those two threads are, at the higher level, the
issue of principles -- and they are very strong messages both in nairobi
and in baku, and i happened to have had the privilege of being either
moderator or a panelist on both taking stock and way-forward sessions in
nairobi and in baku, and the message already at that time was very
strong towards this notion of a compendium and so on.
so principles and how to deal with the proliferation -- positive
proliferation -- of principles is one track.
the other one being the evolution towards understanding enhanced
cooperation or enhanced cooperations as a desire to identify concrete
issues and make the different actors collaborate together to solve them.
it is, therefore, an interesting second track.
operationally, i would suggest to use those two tracks to encourage the
articulation with different workshops that are necessarily going to be
proposed, and to have something that makes an introductory session at
the beginning of the week, and have a closing session at the end of the
week for each of those two tracks, so that the discussion can evolve
during the week instead of having the usual problem that we encounter in
terms of articulation between workshops and main sessions.
so for instance, without getting into too much detail, the goal would be
to have at the beginning of the week two maybe 1 1/2-hour sessions on
each of those two threads and to allow people to organize their
workshops during the week to feed into those two threads, so that at the
end of the week, we can come back to two other sessions and see how
progress has been made. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. and if you allow me to pick up on what you of
said on the impact and outcome of the igf, i fully agree with you, the
igf has not been very good at documenting the outcome and the impact.
particularly (indiscernible) impact. and i would add the use of the term
"multistakeholder."
there's no organization that respects itself that does not use the term
"multistakeholder." that was clearly, i think, a notion that was
pioneered by the igf.
next speaker, united states of america.
>>united states: thank you, chair. i just wanted to make a point of
clarification in the discussion of the main theme.
first of all, i'm glad if the notion of cs -- s&t for d is resonating
with folks. i'm glad for that.
but i had put it forward as a cross-cutting theme or a subtheme, and in
recognition that really the main theme needs to be as overarching --
more overarching, as possible, and possibly -- and so i just want to
make that clarification and take that sort of maybe off the table for a
main theme, but to incorporate it as people like.
and with regard to a main theme, i think overarching is very key and not
weighting one element of the discussion necessarily over others in the
discussion of main themes. something that can encompass all the ideas
that people have been putting forward.
thank you, chair.
>>chair kummer: thank you. point well taken, but it is on the table as a
direction to go, but i also agree. i think when we formulate the main
theme, it should be a little bit snappier. science and technology for
development sounds very u.n.-ish.
[ laughter ]
>>chair kummer: but we need to have a theme that sounds attractive, i
think, also to people who maybe don't normally go to u.n. meetings.
i think economic growth sounds maybe more attractive to policymakers,
but it may be a little bit one-sided as it is not as overarching as the
full societal and transformational -- i think jeff mentioned; i like
that word -- -- the transformational impact of the internet. i'm not
sure whether that's snappy enough, but i think we also have to think a
little bit on how to attract people who might not necessarily have been
to an igf before.
andrea, speaking (indiscernible) correct?
>> thank you. thank you, mr. chair, and first, let me say it's really
nice to congratulate you for your appointment. it's really nice to see
you there. actually, it makes me feel younger to see you back there.
[ laughter ] >> i think when i was -- back four years ago, it's a
familiar feeling and so i must give you (speaking in a non-english
language.). to the point of the main theme and then to add a few points
after.
as a main theme from (indiscernible), we propose to evolve the main
themes that have been suggested so far, particularly in the
(indiscernible) diversity are proposing to have a main theme focusing on
public access. we have seen that. it has been coming through different
sessions and workshops in the past igfs.
and we think it deserves its own space. it's important how you access
the internet. it's important that the world has public access to
internet (indiscernible) can lead to that, and (indiscernible), of
course, is willing to work more into that's correct and there is also a
dynamic coalition on public access, so that's one of our points we want
to make for this mag.
just a few things briefly is regional events. we're really pleased to
see that regional issues are mushrooming across countries and regions,
and we are -- as (indiscernible), we are libraries from 160 countries.
we actually are doing a great work involving them into participating in
the regional event nah (indiscernible) to figure out where niece events
are happening. i know it is not always so easy. and ways to involve
local stakeholders into that.
we are happy to give our support into that, to tackle into the
(indiscernible) library's network.
on the dynamic coalitions, as part of the dynamic coalition won access
and dynamic coalition (indiscernible) outcomes of the igf, i think there
should be also thinking on how to make them more active and how to
reword them. probably the wording is a function of the how to make them
more active.
one idea could be to get them on the mag and if they are active enough,
we are proposing actually implementing stuff that have been discussed
during the igf. that could be a good way to get them back into the whole
igf process.
and one last thing is about what i call (indiscernible) contribution to
the -- to the discussion, the convergence. we -- before, we were
speaking about the outcomes (indiscernible) igf. i think what just ended
yesterday can be seen as an outcome of the igf.
[ audio interference -- please mute ]
-- that were made to a broad multistakeholder support yesterday was a
final statement made from multistakeholder recommendations, and that's
an outcome that i think the igf has to claim more of the influence it
has even in the wsis forum.
(indiscernible) even the name wsis forum came after the igf. at the
beginning it was a long u.n.-ish (indiscernible) implementation and
follow-up that nobody would understand, and now even that you call it a
forum. i mean, that's a good outcome. so in light of that, i think we
should give more thoughts on the convergence, also the review processes.
we're all going (indiscernible) 2015 the wsis mushroomed in several
different, let's say, (indiscernible) and it's interesting to pull all
of that back and see what we can learn from each other, and i think that
the igf in this moment can teach a lot of -- of lessons learned to the
other organizations.
and last point, i was following the name meeting and i heard the
multistakeholder word coming up in several occasions. i thought that was
interesting because you would never expect that. thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you so much. thank ifla stands for international
federation of library associations but i think it came across that you
speak on behalf of libraries. i think the point is also well-taken that
we have to project a little bit in view of 2015 what will happen after
that and work towards that trajectory. i think that is an important
mark. 2014 will not be the end. it will be an important meeting, but
there will be a 2015 meeting and we will think what will happen after
it. will the igf continue? and if so, it will be a decision taken by the
u.n. members. the decision will not be taken in a multistakeholder mode.
but we have to work -- if we want to, we have to work toward that decision.
european commission.
>>european commission: thank you, chair. and good morning to all. i just
wanted to pick up on a couple of points that were already made this
morning. on the outcomes of the igf, yeah, we don't have negotiated
agreement and we're not looking for them. but having no result, no
conclusions means that we're going to lose a lot of what has been
discussed.
so as the chair said, the igf hasn't been exemplary in documenting its
outcome. let's make it exemplary because then we can use what we do to
feed into the discussions of those who do take decisions.
a short point on logistics, i think -- there were a lot of comments on
logistics. and there are comments on logistics in the report by the
group on improving the igf. i think it is not just about comfort of the
participants; it has to do with issues of connectivity which means
remote participation.
it has to do with facilitating travel also for those who are on a
smaller budget to the igf. so i think it's important to take at least
some recommendations on logistics very seriously.
on the themes, again, i would like to echo the chair. i think one of the
main words is to take it forward. whatever we choose as themes, we need
to make sure there is an evolution from the previous igfs. already in
the last igf, many workshops tended to repeat themes, repeat
discussions. we need to make sure that in the final selection we have
some kind of intellectual evolution from what was discussed before. and
the fact that something has been discussed before like spam doesn't mean
we should cut it out. just one word on spam, it's not obviously a major
issue for some countries. it is definitely not a major issue for
countries of the european union. but it is very big for some developing
countries. it made its way into an international treaty. that means
there are a lot of concerns around it. let's not ignore something like
that.
one last thing, i'd like to echo brazil on the point about regional
igfs. i know we're going to discuss this later, but, indeed, it would be
great if we could have a venue at the igf where regional igfs could give
something to the general igfs and maybe discuss amongst each other.
thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. just a brief comment. i don't think we should
not take the logistics seriously. we know they are problems and
challenges. and i think collectively, we are taking this very seriously.
mary, next on my list, please.
>> thank you. this is mary (saying name) from ministry of affairs for
finland. i listen for the discussion here and some of the keywords that
have risen from interventions, development and human rights. human
rights as a cross-cutting issue has risen from our national
multistakeholder process and will be one of the themes of our finnish
internet forum next time.
and many have reminded us on the very interesting discussions that we
have had here in paris with enhanced cooperation and of the working
group on enhanced cooperation which will be in the middle of its
deliberations as we meet in bali.
and, therefore, i would like to make one suggestion for a theme which
would be enhancing multistakeholder cooperation for growth development
and human rights through the internet.
i think growth is also important as we meet in the times of economic
crisis. and it's also intertwined in the questions of spam and all the
challenges we have. how do we combat those for more growth also through
the internet?
so this is my suggestion. maybe we could play with words to make it more
catchy. but these are definitely the keywords that came up of this
discussion. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you very much for this. and i point out, growth
can also be social growth. it does not necessarily need to be economic.
so this is something on the table we're considering.
do we have a remote participant? why don't we give remote participant
precedent as we always say how important it is to bring them in. luka,
please.
>> so, okay, luka (saying name), remote moderator. we have two
suggestions from remote participants. first one is a theme suggestion
from veronica cretu. and she is suggesting internet as an enabler for
social accountability and engagement for improved results. and there is
a comment from deirdre williams, and she is says there is a need for
much proved publicity and dissemination of the igf ideas to people
outside of the "igf insiders."
>>chair kummer: thank you.
next, council of europe?
>>council of europe: thank you, mr. chair. lee hibbard, council of
europe. (indiscernible) i'm the internet governance coordinator in the
council of europe. part of my job is to take stock of what goes into the
igf and what comes out of the igf and to brief my colleagues and to keep
them abreast, also member-states for that matter. and for taking stock
is quite important (audio interference). if we look at baku, for
example, i did some counting. i count the events which concern us and i
think i counted more human rights-related events in baku than ever
before which i think is quite revealing. that's the point i want to
make. it is revealing to see what is happening. why is that? why is
that? why are more people calling for more discussions on human rights?
and are they concerned that the internet is moving away from their
concerns and the internet being a people-centered environment? is it
trying to take stock of the why? are we asking that question enough? why
increasingly do they have a human rights dimension to these meetings?
are there underlying questions of traditions, values, cultures, even
national sovereignty for that matter?
that brought me to thinking about the why of the eurodig which is taking
place in lisbon on 20-21 june and the overarching theme is -- and this
is just a thought, internet for society, how to serve the public
interest?, for example. just to add to that more food for thought, what
the council of europe does and is doing for the next few years, thinking
about questions such as what is internet freedom, is it more of freedom
of information and access to information as we know it? what does it
mean to say "do no harm to the internet"? what measure should states and
factors commit to, to ensure that there is no harm? and what frameworks
of commitments and understanding do stakeholders need to commit and
engage and exchange?
and one final point goes back to the question of internet rights and
principles and the work of a compendium of rights for internet users, do
users know how to effectively exercise their human rights online? thank
you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. canada?
>> canada: thank you, mr. co-chair. there have been a number of
interesting ideas raised this morning and certainly found the discussion
very interesting. i just wanted to support the number of interventions
that have raised the importance of addressing practical issues such as
cybersecurity, spam and malware. i'm thinking in particular of the
comments from nominet but also their written submission and some of the
ideas they have formulated.
i think this is very appropriate for the igf to do. i take on board the
comment that not all igf members and not all governments in particular
put issues like spam at the top of their agenda but as our colleague
from the european commission was just pointing out, for some
governments, it is a very serious issue and has a lot of effects, even
economic effects. and i think there is vast experience in this -- in
this forum, the igf.
when we were at wcit and some of these issues were raised, a number of
us made the observation that a forum like wcit is not the right place to
be discussing them which raises the entirely legitimate question if not
a place like wcit, then where? and i think igf is an answer to that
question. thank you.
(audio buffering.)
>> suggested by nominet for a subtheme on cybersecurity and human
rights. you can't consider one without consideration of the other. i
would like to talk about a couple of things. i think the igf is
incredibly modest. a number of people today have referred to the
importance of understanding the accomplishments of the igf. and i think
there is something we need to take seriously. when you think about the
regional igfs that have sprouted up, the national igfs, the variety and
diversity of programs that are in place around the globe because of the
igf and we have no idea really what the national impact has been of the
igf because we are not doing an accounting of that impact.
so i would like to see the igf actually put in place process, maybe it
is a session, maybe it is an activity, to account for the
accomplishments of the igf and the kind of impact it has had around the
globe.
i'd also like to suggest that we really think about the term
"multistakeholder." i would like to see the igf have a session or an
opportunity for us to talk about multistakeholder best practices,
including something very practical.
how do you implement effective multistakeholder processes? and as the
igf is a flag waver for multistakeholders, it is a perfect place to hold
it.
the last thing i would like to say is in terms of outcomes or outputs, i
think that it's important that the igf look at how its outcomes or
outputs are structured. at the moment -- and coming back to this after a
couple of years being away, they are not hugely helpful. they were not
hugely valuable in terms of what can you actually do with them and now
we are not talking about recommendations or agreements or this or that.
we're just talking about outputs and making them significantly more
valuable and usable to policymakers or stakeholders or whoever when they
go back to their countries and they say: okay, we have a solution, a
proposed solution, or a variety of solutions for a particular problem. i
would like to see us getting back to a real review of best practices a
real look at how we can make what we do far more practical and usable.
thank you.
>>chair kummer: i think there is a broad sense of agreement on that,
that the outcomes can and should be better documented. the question is
basically how. and this is also not resource neutral. either you hire an
excellent consultant and there are people who can do it, or you do it
collectively, the mag works harder on that.
but, again, the mag, these are -- it is all voluntary work and it can be
hard work. but this is definitely something we have to think about. and
i still have speakers, and right at the end of the room, bill, you asked
for the floor. please, you have the floor.
>> thank you very much, mr. chair. actually quite a pleasure for me to
be here today and to see markus up there with chengetai. brings back
excellent memories.
i guess i would like to suggest a major theme for the event and
listening to everything, and that would be an engine for growth and
advancement, the internet, an engine for growth and advancement.
markus, you mentioned that growth is not only economic. it can be
societal. and i think by recognizing that, we can -- it encompasses
quite a breadth of topics that we could -- that we could include, for
example, science and technology, human rights and freedom of expression.
we could include business models, business models that have come up as a
result of the internet that may not be well-known all around the world.
access and diversity, where i would throw in things potentially like
exchange points, local content, local hosting.
and i also suggest that we need -- and i've heard calls here for this --
to have higher-level sessions. i think in my mind, that would be perhaps
a smaller number of them, especially the lengthy plenary sessions that
we've been subjected to in recent years.
practical sessions i've heard a call for, where this might be sort of
the traditional workshop, 90 minutes. and i think we could have some
very good working sessions as well where they would be during the week,
perhaps a half day of intense discussion on topics, for example, spam.
it is definitely an issue. however, there are methods to approach it, to
mitigate it. they exist. and they are evolving.
and having been at the wcit and listened to the issues that i recognize
are real, i have to respectfully disagree with those who believe that a
treaty-level instrument is going to have a practical, positive impact on
spam. the way we deal with spam and things like that is at the lowest
possible levels on the ground and taking very strong measures and
working cooperatively.
so it is good that we are talking about these things, but just writing
it in a treaty is not going to solve the problem that countries have.
talking about it in a practical working session at the igf would be
helpful.
finally, with respect to comments made by matthew shares, i would be
happy to co-submit a proposal on multistakeholder models and practices
and to run such a group at the igf. i think that's a fabulous idea
because all, too, often we hear the term bandied about but in reality
when we get into perhaps what is declared as a multistakeholder meeting,
we find out, in fact, it is something quite different.
so i think that would be a very good thing a very appropriate thing for
the igf to do. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. and i think it would tie up with the comments
that the igf has not been particularly good at documenting its success,
and that would be basically claiming ownership of the term
"multistakeholder" and defining it and setting a yardstick. i think that
would definitely, to me at least, make sense.
raul?
>>raul echeberria: thank you, mr. chair. this week on monday
(indiscernible) say that the information society should be seen from the
perspective of human rights and i very much agree with this approach. so
i would like to show my voice to those that are proposing human rights
as one of the most prominent overarching issues, topics for igf.
and i think it shouldn't be only for this year's meeting because this is
an issue that should remain for every igf meeting for the next few years
because human rights will remain unfortunately an issue around the world
for many years.
i like very much the way the finnsh representative combined the
development and cooperation and human rights. it could be nice if we
could combine those ideas, those values in the main theme of the igf in
indonesia.
regarding other topics to be discussed, i think cybersecurity,
cybercrime are definitely important topics and i differentiate the two
topics because many times we speak about cybercrime, cybersecurity if
they are the same thing. and they are different things. both of them are
very important, but we have to deal with them in a different manner. so
i think those issues should be prioritized because those are areas in
which i think we have the challenge to demonstrate that the
multistakeholder model is able to provide some progress and some
solutions for dealing with those really big problems that we have today.
we have, of course, identified some specific points because i echo those
that have said that we have to focus in practical issues and concrete
things and not to discuss just those themes in a very general way.
so i think my last comment is regarding the outcomes. i think that we
have a broad agreement that we are ready to move one step forward and
try to produce better outcomes from igf. and as you say, mr. chair, the
challenge now is to deal with the implementation of that. but i think if
we agree this is where we have to focus how to implement that so the
works are written down.
this week we had a very good experience here at unesco as a way of
dealing with this issue probably. it could be a basis for discussion in
the mag meeting. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that, both for the substantive comments
and the procedural aspect indeed. this was also a question in our minds.
can we learn from the unesco's way of proceeding? the also more focused,
ask workshop organizers to be focused on outcomes. and security,
security has been with us right from the beginning. but maybe we also
have to rethink a little bit how to deal with it because it is also an
issue of major concern for governments. and i think as martin said, the
multistakeholder framework can -- and others, can maybe provide better
answers. but we may have to rethink on how to frame it.
anriette, you also asked for the floor.anriette, you asked for the floor.
>> going back to the multistakeholder term, well, we are talking about --
>>chair kummer: for the scribes, it is not anriette esterhuysen.
>> ana neves from portugal.
>>chair kummer: i was not speaking clearly enough. so my fault.
>> ana neves: now it is clear. good. my point is about the term
multistakeholder and multistakeholder principles because we are
discussing sometimes the more internet governance, the principles are
not so much multistakeholder principles. it was already said today here
what multistakeholder means and its importance and organization that
doesn't respect itself -- well, nowadays it has to say it is
multistakeholder.
but what is multistakeholder? what does that mean? and so my main point
is that besides the internet governance principles, we have to see and
discuss what are the principles of the multistakeholders. and i think
that when we discuss these principles of the multistakeholders, we start
to see that we have multi-governments, multi-civil societies,
multi-private sector and multi-technical communities. and it is
interesting and it is rich to now we are at the level to better
understand where we are.
and so if we understand where we are, it's better to understand why it's
so difficult then to implement any action because it is not governments
that are going to implement anything because we have multi-governments,
governments, they are all different.
besides that, i must say i like a lot the title that representative from
finland put forward for the igf to play with, with the words "enhance"
and "enhance multistakeholderism."
i think it would enrich the title to include something related to
empowerment, capacity enhancement or building. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i basically have closed the list. but in the
spirit of inclusiveness, let's also listen to remote participants. and i
think our colleague from russia whose name i can't remember also asked
for the floor. remote participant first. and there is one more. russia
also, okay.
>> thank you, markus. we have two comments from remote participants. the
first is a suggestion from the theme of the next igf from (saying name)
from the internet governance caucus. and she is suggesting economies,
communities, challenges and nations and opportunities.
and then we have a suggestion from victor from cameroon that is
suggesting to have a small guide on multistakeholder igf best practices
and he is saying that having national and regional igfs is a way to
implementing multistakeholder igf process and to share multistakeholder
ig best practices.
>>chair kummer: thank you. please recall your name. my apologies that i
can't remember it.
>> andrea (saying name). higher school of economics at the university.
first, i would like to thank the government of azerbaijan for the
successful 7th annual meeting of the igf which was very successful for
our delegation as well. and then i would like to say that i totally
agree with absolute majority of delegations which propose human rights
on the internet as one of the major topics of discussion.
one note which i could simply make on this that the human rights is a
complex issue which needs a complex approach to it. and so that's why i
agree that we need the specific combined topic which allows common
approaches for internet governance with the convergence of institutions
and convergence of approaches.
for example, we understood through the legal sociological, technological
approaches, all of these issues, i think, are important to serv
>>chair kummer: thank you. and please, can you introduce yourself?
>> thank you very much, chair. my name is michael (saying name) name.
i'm also from the (saying name).
i would like, first of all, to say that it's a pleasure for me being
here, and on behalf of (saying name), i would like to focus on business
aspects.
it was already raised by -- by the ui, i think, that today
(indiscernible) the service sector has become the biggest and fast
growing business sector in the world, which also (indiscernible) quality
of life of people all around the world, and our economy is
service-oriented, and actually we have internet which makes businesses
going globally, right?
and which makes services being global.
that's why we also propose (indiscernible) contribution on
service-oriented approach based on (indiscernible) of services and
(indiscernible) of things because when we are talking about
service-oriented approach of the global economy and global services
change relationships between the people and companies. with the use of
internet, and when we're talking about internet governance, we should
also consider that it influences business which is based on the internet.
that's why there are several possible subtopics, probably, about new
business models of the internet, new models of the internet,
possibilities for personalization of services including people with
disabilities, and also security issues.
so among such important topics like human rights, the internet,
technological issues, i think probably it is necessary also to include
business issues when we're talking about internet governance. thank you
very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i see there are more flags coming up. i
wanted to close this, but can we really close the list now?
i see (indiscernible) and is that you, patrik? okay. (indiscernible) and
then patrik.
>> thank you, chair. i would like to offer a suggestion of theme with a
view of trying to -- to covering the different subissues we've discussed
this morning, which could be cooperation for growth, development, and
human rights, best practices for sustainable knowledge societies. thank
you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you. patrick?
>> thank you. good morning, my name is patrick ryan. i'm with google.
and although the topics and themes of the igf are extremely important,
my intervention now is focused on the funding of the igf. it's a topic
that's rarely, if ever, addressed at the open consultations and i
realize we're talking about other things, but i hope you'll permit me to
make my intervention now, so that we can talk about this maybe a little
bit over lunch and at break.
let's face it, money is really hard to talk about, and so it's
completely avoided in many cases, or taboo.
it's crucial, if not existential topic here, and so i want to be sure to
bring it up. and to put some light on it today.
the igf operates on a shoestring budget. it's astonishing the amount of
work that chengetai accomplishes, with part-time colleagues and several
volunteers.
in order to do it to do many of the things that the participants want,
such as increasing outreach and collaboration with the developing world,
providing a revamped web site, tracking information and reporting on
successes, the igf needs our financial support.
the funding for the igf is itself a multistakeholder endeavor.
contributions are voluntary, and they come from member states, the
private sector, and civil society.
although we don't yet have an overall view of the total budgetary needs
for the igf, our colleagues at un did he say a and at the igf
secretariat on are working on that and have promised to share that
information with us very shortly. this willer very important as we set
fundraising activities for 2013. last year the igf raised almost
$900,000 from a total of 15 contributors. about nine contributors are
from the private sector and ngos, and six are from governmental entities.
in this regard, i want to call out special recognition for the
government of finland, which has contributed nearly 25% of the annual
budget on its own.
just a few more numbers.
in a typical year, the igf is attended by around 2,000 people from more
than 130 countries. most all of the governments around the world praise
the value of the igf. we talk about it in other context at itu as the
alternative, but with only six governments contributing to the igf,
there is lots of opportunity.
there is no reason why half of the countries of the 130 countries that
attend it, shouldn't contribute in some way. those numbers don't need to
be high on an individual basis, but some contribution is important.
i realize that government budgets are tight, but i respectfully call on
governments to find a way to contribute to this effort. there's no
reason why we shouldn't be able to turn the number of government
contributions from nine to 90 this year.
similarly, the private sector needs to step up.
businesses like google believe in the values of the igf, but our
business models also depend on the success of the internet. it can
sometimes be a challenge to have private sector contributions from any
single company or any single government to be too large because of the
perceptions that can flow from that. we don't want the igf to be
perceived to have been bought by any single company or government.
at the same time, the number of private sector contributors should
greatly increase, and i see no reason why the overall number of private
sector contributors should not nine from nine to 90 as well. ladies and
gentlemen, if we can accomplish this simple fundraising task, the
opportunities for the igf will be far greater than we are now. as we
enter the eighth year, it's time to put our money where our mouth is, to
walk the talk, and to show that we support the multistakeholder
environment and that we mean it.
i want to draw your attention to the funding tab on the igf web site,
which thanks to chengetai and the work of undesa provides a lot more
information on how to fund. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you, patrick. while this was completely off topic,
i think it was nevertheless very helpful.
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: this is also, i think, a lot of the
recommendations of the working group on igf improvements are extremely
helpful, but -- and not always resource-neutral. yes, of course it would
be nice to do this and to do that, but the secretariat, which is
comprised by one single person, there are limits to what this guy can
do, and this is something we need to bear in mind.
so i would also suggest when approaching the report that we make maybe
proposals that are resource-neutral but there are others that need more
resources, that we make the distinction and look at those that can be
implemented without additional resources as a kind of low-hanging fruit.
i mean, they -- "okay, that can be done," but some others cannot be done
unless we have more resources. but resources can also be given through
in-kind contributions. there may also be volunteers that come up to take
on the task.
there is another call for the floor. nurani, yes.
>> knew, mr. chairman. my name is in your rami. i work for net noticed.
internet infrastructure organization in sweden.
it's great to be here today and it's great to see you up there again,
markus, and i think there have been some very good discussions today.
i'm going to -- i'm going to keep it very brief, since i know that we
are -- we want to move forward.
i think there have been a few very good ideas being tossed around today,
and i think i'd like to associate myself with the speaker previously,
who pointed out that it's important that the internet -- that the igf
continues to evolve, and i think we need to show that in the program and
we need to show that through the main themes that we have.
the themes might just seem like a banner or a tag line, but it really
sets the agenda for the whole igf, so we shouldn't underestimate the --
the importance of that.
by showing also that the igf continues to evolve, i think we show that
by taking on new themes, that maybe the igf wasn't mature enough for
before, so i think a few people have mentioned the human rights aspects
and i think the internet is an enabler for human rights. it's a very
important and current topic that i think the igf should pick up on.
i also really like (saying name) thoughts from the finnish delegation
about playing with the words of "enhanced" and "enhanced
multistakeholderism."
i think that's something that would be good to pick up on.
and then just a final comment, not necessarily on the main themes, but i
was listening in to the -- the workshop yesterday on enhanced
cooperation, and the point there was made about how the igf is very
inclusive and -- but -- but we also need to be aware of the different
stakeholder groups that have different ways of interacting with the igf.
so if we want it to be more inclusive, we need to take that into
consideration, so for example, by -- by -- if we want more participation
from certain governments, we might need to do more to reach out to them.
we might need to -- to do -- to specifically invite them and even to
organize pre-events, for example, at the igf that motivates them to come
and participate. thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you.
and really last speaker on this segment, qazi al-shatti, p please.
>>qusai al-shatti: thank you, mr. chair, and welcome to the internet
governance hall again.
first of all, i would like to (indiscernible) azerbaijan agreement for
their hospitality in organizing this event, igf meeting, and
(indiscernible) their beautiful country of azerbaijan, so i would like
to thank them for that.
i would like to echo the comments that the igf needs to evolve and the
evolvement of the igf should be a revising the topics and the themes
that -- to be discussed.
i would like -- we'd like to have more focus on having a more open,
inclusive internet, which we feel that it is still a current and
important issue, as well as promoting a multistakeholder model for
internet governance on what -- at global and regional levels. thank you,
mr. chair.
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. okay. now looking at the timetable,
i realize that we're well behind what chengetai has proposed. he said he
should move on, i think, some time ago, but i think it was a very good
discussion and we touched on many not just aspects of the main themes,
but the -- also touched on organizational aspects and on how to improve
on the functioning.
so basically the next half hour, we can start discussions on the
organizational aspects and on the main sessions.
i think we have already touched on that, and i think the strong notion
here in the room is is that the igf is evolving, so maybe also that you
need to revisit a little bit the concept of the main sessions.
there are certain parameters that are given. the three-hour main session
is given -- is dictated by the contracts with the interpreters. that
doesn't mean that we cannot break it into segments but we cannot have,
for instance, two 2 hour sessions because that's not how the
interpreters work. they work in 3-hour segments.
so that we have to accept.
but i think there was a strong notion in the written contributions that
three hours is too long to have one subject, one panel; that at least we
should think in breaking it up in two. and also, i think what i heard
from the discussions, that maybe we need new subject matters, like
(indiscernible) written contribution maybe more focused sessions.
we discussed that years ago, but i think in the end the mag was always
moved back into the comfort zone of having the same titles. they have
evolved slightly. you know, what we had first was security but -- we
dealt with security and openness separately so that moved into security,
openness and privacy, so there was an evolution, but my feeling was at
least the past two sessions -- past two igf meetings were more the
opportunity to walk around, that the energy was much more in the
workshops than in the main sessions.
some contributions said we should not have workshops in parallel with
the main sessions, which is, i think, almost impossible to organize
unless we want to have workshops very early or very late or during the
lunch break, but we earlier said there should not be sessions during the
lunch break either because participants wanted the lunch breaks to
connect and to socialize, and that -- i think that's also an important
aspect.
so what do we do with the main sessions? can we agree on --
and a lot of ideas came up during the very first discussion. we could do
this -- have this, have that. also, the format is not cast in stone or
cast in iron, but what is -- we have to make use of interpreters in the
main room, because we said we want to provide at least one track which
is in all u.n. languages, but that can be also something else.
it has been mentioned maybe some more hands-on technical sessions
explaining on how to deal with spam. that was repeated by various
speakers, could be one of the options.
there was also the talk about having a discussion on multistakeholder
principles, as multistakeholder cooperation is so central to the igf,
why not keeping that center stage.
young people and the igf or some proposed kids -- internet for kids or
internet and kids, that has been something that has been on the agenda,
has been mentioned many a times, that we should do more or we should
give center stage to young people. and last year i was in a workshop
with some of -- kids, i think high school age, 16, 17, from the u.k.,
who were absolutely remarkable and, you know, we can also think about
giving them center stage.
i was pleased to see that we have a very young participant in the back
of the room. i think estimated age, less than two, or what --
[ laughter ]
>>chair kummer: so that's good to know there is --
[ laughter ]
>>chair kummer: -- young people also present here in the planning phase.
maybe we should listen --
[ laughter ]
>>chair kummer: yes. and i'm sure there's --
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: and i'm sure he or she knows how to use an
ipad and find their favorite videos.
so the floor is open. what are the -- martin, yes, please.
>>nominet: thank you, chair. martin boyle from nominet.
for a long time, i've found it very difficult to identify what i expect
to get out of the main and plenary sessions, and there have been various
attempts at various stages to use the main sessions to give feedback
from workshops, but, for example, last year i went to the security,
openness, privacy open session, and the feedback from the workshops was
very much a bolt-on right at the end -- right at the end of the session.
and i think that might be that we end up losing an opportunity because
when people do workshops, they go into their little silo in a small room
and by the time they've produced the report, well, that particular
internet governance forum has been and gone.
so i wondered whether there was perhaps some way of reserving the
plenary sessions towards the end of the meeting, on the last couple of
days of the meeting, against the particular themes and using that to get
feedback from all the relevant workshops, so that there is some central
point of documenting and understanding what were the key issues that
came up, and then that, of course, leaves you with the first two days
worth of plenary sessions where i think it would be very useful to bring
younger people center stage, to use some of the more general discussions
which we want to try and get wider orientation for, perhaps on enhanced
cooperation, perhaps on human rights implications of certain things,
but, you know, that would be my suggestion that we try to make sure that
the plenaries are well integrated into the work, and that there is a
reason for people to turn up to those particular plenary sessions. thank
you, chair.
>>chair kummer: thank you, and on that note, there was also a strong
sense that we need to work on integrating bringing in the national
regional igfs' initiatives. i think that is also something we can work
on. we had some more -- we have some interregional roundtables but they
were not given center stage, and i think this is also something worth
considering.
chris disspain?
>>chris disspain: thank you, mr. chair.
just a couple of things. first of all, i agree with what you've just
said and what martin's just said about the main sessions.
my observations are, having been involved in these from the very
beginning, are that the current way we do them is probably reaching the
end of its life cycle. the concept of an hour and a half or three hours
on a particular topic, you know, using the same headings we've used
since the beginning and trying to find subjects underneath is -- isn't
proving very effective, i don't think, for the main sessions, were
particularly we will attended in baku, and in fact, i think we had this
conversation last year when we said the main sessions weren't
particularly we will attended wherever we were the year before.
and i wonder whether the -- the feedback that we tend to get on the main
sessions tends to come from the panelists who are there who -- who come
back and say "yes, that all seemed to go very well" and that may well be
so for them but i -- there's a lack of convincing feedback from the
audience members who attend these main sessions as to their -- as to
their worth, whereas there is a significant, in my view, amount of
feedback on workshops that indicates that they have worth.
so i'm very keen to hear what everyone else has to say about the main
sessions so that we can move them on in a way that is helpful to the
greater picture of the i went, and i certainly think tying them to
regional and national igfs and the workshop reports is -- is something
worth considering, and not being -- also not being fixed, in that we
have to have x number of them.
we have to have some, but we may not have to have as many as we
currently do. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. car on lena is next, and we have many
speakers. yes, carolina. yes.
>> thank you. (saying name) lactld. i completely agree with the proposal
much rethinking the igf's main sessions, whether we should have six as
we had before, whether we should maintain the same topics for them, the
subthemes reflected in the -- in the (indiscernible) programs, are then
not taken up by the audience or the questions or the panelists are
talking about something and then there are questions coming from the
floor divorced from the presentations. maybe some further documentation
about what has been the evolution of that main session in the past seven
igfs for the newcomers and participants attending main sessions would be
a possible solution, but in all, i agree with martin boyle's suggestions
and chris disspain's comments that we really need to rethink whether we
need six, when and where should we put them, and the extension of these
main sessions as well, as part of the whole igf program. thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. i have lots and lots of speakers.
next was bertrand. then i have united states, olga, anriette, wendy,
valid a, bill smith, china, and let's see how many we can take before
lunch. and icc/basis, council of europe.
>>bertrand de la chapelle: bertrand de la chapelle, internet
jurisdiction project.
each year we have a session called "emerging issues." the concept of
this session has evolved. it was initially intended to be a sort of
takeup of issues that had emerged during the igf. it rapidly evolved
into trying to make a specific focus on emerging trends and some of
those sessions were pretty good, actually. i remember one in vilnius in
particular on cloud computing that was quite illustrative.
however, i wonder whether it wouldn't be better to use such a session --
maybe shorter or longer, like one hour and a half instead three -- to
deal with what has happened since the previous igf, like emerging issues
in terms of what are the trends in governance issues. we deal in the
internet and jurisdiction project with challenges related to
jurisdiction and the impact on the cross-border internet, and we see
trends involving and there are issues on security and others that would
be documented, which is a way to bring the participants up to speed on a
certain number ofsome developments much.
the second thing is, sessions of three hours are clearly too long, and i
would like to encourage, as i proposed earlier, to have threads, and to
make sessions instead of putting the main sessions at the end, as was
proposed, which is not possible given the time with three hours, having
different threads -- maybe two, three, or four -- where initial sessions
at the beginning of the week would launch the thread, the workshops
dealing with that thread would be dealing with the different facets of
the issue during the week, and then at the end of the -- of the week,
having one, two, or three wrap-up sessions of one hour and a half to
sort of launch the issue, broaden it, re-narrow it, so that the work is
done in the course of the -- of the week.
>>chair kummer: thank you. united states.
>>united states: thank you, chair. liesyl prawns from the u.s.
i completely agree with the notion that, as other people have said, of
rethinking how to deal with the main sessions and utilize the plenary
nature of them, as well as the integration of things that happen at the
igf, but -- and maybe this is stating the obvious, based on what other
comments that have been made, but i do think that one thing that was not
helpful in the main sessions was report-outs from the workshops in a way
that kind of hampered the conversation.
and i can say that as one who did a report-out once, so i -- i realized
there's some value for getting on the record from the workshops in a way
in the main session, but unfortunately i think the reports and the way
that they've been done just hampered the discussion and the dynamism
that we really want to get, so i'm all for rethinking how to do that.
thank you.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i notice an emerging consensus that we are
ready to rethink, which is, i think, a very positive move.
olga is next.
>>olga cavalli: thank you, chair. and welcome back, markus. it's so nice
to have you here again as our chair.
some comments about main sessions.
there may be value in three-hour sessions if we can go deeper into the
discussion.
one hour and a half sometimes is too few to go into deeper dialogue. i
think we should revisit -- revise the main themes. we should focus on
things that have happened from the past year, the past igf, into the new
one, as bertrand said, so we have to rethink the themes. and i also
agree -- and i have said this many times -- this reporting from the
workshops doesn't work at all. i mean, i think it's -- it doesn't show
the content of the workshops and it's not helpful for the main session.
i wanted to say something more but i cannot find my note.
so i'll stop for the moment. thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you. a brief comment, if you will allow.
i'm not sure -- i think the three-hour session is -- taxes the attention
span of the same speakers, and i think also if you're on a panel for
three hours, it's also for the panelists it can be actually quite
tedious. but you can -- to pick up on your idea, you could also have two
panels dealing with similar aspects or slightly different aspects of an
overarching theme. unesco did that in some of the workshops, okay, the
next panel comes in. there is in one workshop, i think, of 90 minutes
they had three sets of panelists, which may be a little bit too much
but, you know, you can also play with that, with the format.
>>olga cavalli: chair, if you allow me one more comment that i was
forgetting.
i think in sharm el sheikh, we tried a different model of a main
session. it was very much interactive, and i think that was nice.
very few -- few panelists and very few speeches, short speeches and a
lot of intersection with -- with the public, with the people there.
that were -- once they were -- i don't know why we came back again to
the model of the panel, but that's something that i would like to
remember from what we did before. thank you very much.
>>chair kummer: thank you, but let's just pick up on what chris disspain
said, that the current model, i think outlived its usefulness or "sell
by" date, however you worded it but i think it was also a little bit my
impression we've done it and it's more of the same thing. it's not that
they're necessarily bad, but they -- to begin with, people with, people
were all excited, it was new, but it sort of sank into routine and there
was more of the same thing, and if you can make it more interactive or
better, but a lot of energy was spent on the selection of panelists and
making sure there's balance there, and then adding one more to be sure
and that sort of led to a ritual that i think really has outlasted, i
think, its usefulness.
but anriette.
>>anriette esterhuysen: thank you, markus. i i don't support what chris
disspain has said and other speakers and comments from the u.s. as well.
i think using the main session as a way of synthesizing outcomes much
workshops as a work, i think it has outlived its value. i think what
chris said, we don't have to have multiple main sessions. i do think
that maybe one or two with good speakers can be interesting, and i want
to really thank patrick ryan for his comments earlier because i think
resources are extremely important and i think one area where we see this
is in the lack of funding available to invite new, interesting, relevant
speakers to the igf. and i think maybe one or two main sessions with
good speakers would be very valuable.
just to share an experience from baku, some -- apc as well as some other
governments and organizations involved in the igf organized a round
table in baku. we organized a human rights roundtable and its goal was
for workshops that had dealt with human rights to come together and
share the outcomes of their workshops. due to time constraints, we
weren't able to -- or scheduling clashes -- to have all the
rights-related workshops. we had probably at least seven.
and it worked extremely well. and we gave the workshops time to present
their input. we were able to discuss where there were overlaps and where
there were gaps. so as a mechanism for achieving what we have been
unable to achieve is zibet sizing workshops, i can really propose and
recommend that format of the roundtable -- of the magic roundtable.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i think this picks up up on also what martin
suggested more or less, yes, to have the workshops coming together and
having an interactive discussion, not just reading records. i think we
agree on that.
wendy?
>>wendy seltzer: thank you very much, chair, and to our hosts. i want to
echo what was heard. and i think we should -- about rethinking our
working mode because i think what we are revealing trying to do is to
engineer serendipity. we are trying to figure out how to help people to
meet the people they need to meet to learn the things they need to learn
and we may not know what those are coming in.
and so i would suggest fewer sessions that get a larger audience
together in the same place that gives participants a shared base of
knowledge a shared meeting point where they can find that perhaps that
technical issue they didn't think was really interesting is critical to
their work six months down the road and now they know whom to contact
because they've seen interesting panelists. or equally important, they
have seen interesting fellow participants in the audience. we say that a
lot of what we do is bring together audience members and everyone is a
participant. i think that getting the participants into the same room
more frequently rather than spread out among 10 or 11 different rooms
could help that.
i also often find that the most important part of a conference is its
hallway track, the unscheduled moments, the breaks and the moments of
mingling. it is important to have the key sessions to get the right
people to come, and it is equally important to leave them time to
discuss what they've learned afterwards in unstructured modes.
>>chair kummer: thank you. i like organizing serendipity. that sounds good.
[ laughter ]
i think there was agreement a long time ago that the mingling factor was
important, and we should not fill every available slot with meetings.
and so the -- i think to have a two-hour free slot or lunchtime slot for
people to be able to interact, i think that's considered key.
but then how many sessions, less sessions -- let me basically come to
the discussion of workshops. i still have quite a number of speakers.
china. (indiscernible), are you speaking?
>> china: thank you, chair. (saying name). this is the first name for
our intervention, our first experience. our condolence to mrs. chin. it
is very sad news for us. she had put a lot of energy and efforts to the
other meetings and also made great contributions for the igf process.
and i think we should welcome you, mr. markus, to come back to the igf
meeting as a the interim chairman. under your leadership, we have a very
efficient and effective discussion.
for the main session, the workshop, i agree with you that it is very
good to rethink the main session and the workshop. under the current
mechanism, i think the big issue or the big problem that the workshop
and the main session, there is no direct connection between them because
in this current arrangement, the main session is held in parallel with
the plenary. and, first off, the workshop has no time or has no
opportunity to report back to the plenary sessions and the plenary don't
even have enough time to digest the outcomes from the workshop. so it is
my suggestion that we should -- maybe we can give more time for the
discussion of the workshop.
so my suggestion that because we have two preparatory process -- time,
one -- the first preparatory in february and the second in may, but
traditionally, we use this preparatory process to just identify the main
themes of the meeting.
i think maybe we could use just one preparatory meeting to identify the
main sessions because it is not very difficult. i think the
(indiscernible) of this change is that after this meeting, the
under-secretary-general of the u.n. will publish the (indiscernible) of
the meeting, and it will need more time for the organizer of the
workshop to prepare for their workshops. and with the second preparatory
meeting, i think we can live for the workshop to organize the events. we
can leave all the time and all the venues for the workshop organizers to
have very fruitful discussions during the second preparatory process.
and after the second preparatory meeting, they still have two months'
time and they can prepare the written reports to the plenary meeting.
and during the plenary meeting, maybe the plenary meeting can choose the
workshop organizers as the panelists and have ample time and also the
participants can have more time to read and digest or read their reports
from the workshop. and i think, you know, it's very important for the
participants to know what is happening or what is the outcomes or what
is the discussions from the workshops. actually, they are not -- the
traditional way of publishing the six main themes and the participants,
you need to note what will be discussed during the annual meeting. so we
give more time, more opportunity, more chance for the workshop to have a
fruitful discussion and give more opportunity for them to present the
outcomes to the planning meetings. and i think this would be more
beneficial for the efficiency of the annual meetings.
and i think for the overall themes and the meetings, i think the host
country of indonesia has made a very good proposal on the basis of
indonesia's proposal, we can in tomorrow's mag meeting determine the
overall themes in this meeting.
and the six main themes, i think, in practice saying the past meetings,
we have followed the six main themes. these six main themes is the
pillar of the igf.
we can remain to use it also as this year's main themes. it will give
more ample time, more fruitful discussion for the workshop to discuss at
the preparatory meetings.
and i think with this kind of arrangement, adjustment when you give more
involvement of the multistakeholders. so previous -- because also --
(audio dropped out) -- but we should give more time, more chance for the
multistakeholders to discuss, to reflect their views. so i think we can
make this igf meeting more fruitful with more outcomes. thank you, mr.
chair.
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. before breaking for lunch, there
are still many, many speakers who put up their flag, but they can speak
after lunch. i would like to give the floor to a remote participant. i
think it is mag member paul wilson.
>> yes, we have paul wilson who is trying to participate remotely.
>> paul wilson: good morning. can you hear me? good morning. can you
hear me? hello. i am trying to speak. hello?
>>chair kummer: paul. we have some audio. we cannot hear you, but we can
read you. just carry on.
>>paul wilson: i can see and hear you very well. okay. now i can see
myself on the transcript so i guess i can be heard.
>>chair kummer: now we can hear you.
>>paul wilson: okay. thank you very much. and hello to everyone. my name
is paul wilson. i'm a member of the mag.
(audio interference).
i'm really story not to be in paris but i had a clash here with meetings
in singapore. very happy to have joined the unesco meetings yesterday
(audio interference). very happy as well. so thanks to the u.n. staff
for making it possible. congratulations, to you, too, markus, on your
appointment. it is great news.
i have been hearing some of the first session of the consultation about
main themes and i have heard some but not all of the suggestions. it
seemed there are a lot of good ideas. i may not have heard them all but
some of them at least seem to be linked to the wsis+10 meetings which is
great. we heard from bertrand about the importance of
multistakeholderism principles and about enhanced cooperation.
there have been a few other good -- a few good proposals that seem to be
getting a little complicated.
and i wanted to suggest considering something short and simple which is
actually linked to the wsis+10 discussions as well in a pretty obvious
way. and that would be to consider an encompassing main theme for the
igf as simply this one: internet cooperation. i think now really is the
time to talk about cooperation. i think internet cooperation is what
we're all doing as a term which, i think, invokes internet governance
but with the concept of cooperation obviously there as well.
and i think the timing for that -- for adopting internet cooperation as
a theme mighting quite good in terms of leading up to the wsis+10. if
that's not something that flies in the case of this meeting, then i
would like to suggest that -- or i would plan to maybe develop that idea
in a workshop proposal and i might come back to it next year if it seems
to be a possibility then.
that's all i will say at the moment. i realize you are about to go for a
break. it is dinner time for me, too. i will try to rejoin after that in
a couple of of hours' time. thanks again for the opportunity.
>>chair kummer: thank you, paul. and, indeed, i would suggest we break.
i will quickly read out who i have on my speakers list, and if i miss
out on something please shout. council of europe, unesco, european
commission, icc/basis, (indiscernible), bill drake, paul rendek and
(saying name) and matthew shears. adam? mexico, is it?
hang on. we can always add. that is just basically reading out those
that had up their hands.
>> (speaker off microphone).
>>chair kummer: okay, okay. may i also suggest if you have it up, keep
it up. if it is like that, that means you are -- i have read out paul.
yes. andrea. okay. we have a rich program waiting for us this afternoon.
enjoy your lunch. we resume at 2:30 in this room, again, 11 and not 2.
thank you very much.
(lunch break.)
>>chengetai masango: ladies and gentlemen, we will have an informal
meeting of the regional and national igfs in this room now. so if you
want to stay for the meeting, please stay. if you are not, could you
please exit the room. thank you..
%%%jen{^
(lunch break).
-------------- next part --------------
. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. 
. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. 
igf open consultations. 
28 february 2013. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***ladies and gentlemen, we're going to start in just a few minutes. there's a bit of confusion concerning room numbers. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com*** 
>>chengetai masango: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. we're about to start. can we please sit dow 
ladies and gentlemen, can we sit down, please? 
order. i'm going to start calling out names. 
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: patrik? 
ladies and gentlemen, can we start the meeting? we are a bit late as it is.can we please be seated? need a gavel. 
welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the open consultations. 
thank you very much. before we open -- before we start the meeting, i would just like to remind you that we do have transcription and remote participation, so when you make an intervention, can you please make sure that your microphone is on and you say your name and the organization which you represent slowly and then you can go into your intervention. 
so before we start, i would like to hand over the floor to mr. slav on check on, from undesa who would like to say a few words. 
>> thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for honoring madam chair (saying name) director of department of government and social affairs with desa with your meaningful tribute. the kind generosity of good friends like you has been a great help to all of us during this very difficult time. 
our desa family, and i would like myself to offer our most sincere thanks for the messages and letters that you sent in the memory of madam chen. 
thank you very much for your loving support and i would like to ask you a minute of silence in her memory. 
[ moment of silence ] >> okay. let me continue. as you know, the internet governance forum is a multistakeholder forum for policy dialogue related to the internet governance issue, and it welcomes governments, international organizations, business representatives, the technical community, civil society organizations, and individuals to participate in this event. 
on behalf of the under-secretary-general of the united nations, mr. wu, please allow me to start by welcoming you to all to the 2013 cycle of the open consultations and the mag meetings on the internet governance, and also thank you, unesco, for hosting this event. 
two thousand- -- as desa is committed to improving the core ideas of the igf and its open, inclusive, and multistakeholder platform. 
2012 igf team in baku was determined by magazine as (indiscernible) and social development. it's truly reflected the increased role of the internet in the evolution of the various development components through the world. 
the capacity development opportunities the igf provides are truly remarkable. let me take this time to thank the mag and mag members, which provide extensive leadership and the guidance to past and future forums. 
i would like to thank also our general (indiscernible) community, those contributions to the igf trust fund have enabled us to engage in capacity-building program such as the igf fellowship program. 
the funds also provide support for 11 mag members from developing countries who are attending this event as well. 
i invite everyone present here, either in person or remotely, to actively take part in the -- all discussions regarding the themes and substantive structure of the 2013 igf that is going to be supported and hosted by the government of government of indonesia. it's all of us to contribute to the sustainable development of the world we are living in. let us also use this opportunity to discuss opportunities in implementation of the action plan of the. 
>>wsis: , wsis, and in the consultative process of the post 2015 development framework. thank you very much. okay. and now i would like to give the floor to the honorary chair of the mag meeting, the representative of the government of indonesia. 
>>indonesia: thank you. excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. 
my name is (saying name) from indonesia. first of all, i would like to express a most welcome to all of you in paris for participating in this first internet governance forum open consultations and mag meeting, the preparation process of the eighth igf meeting 2013. as mentioned before, it's planned to be held in bali, indonesia this year. 
also on behalf of the entire community, i would like to express our gratitude to the success of the republic of azerbaijan for hosting the seventh igf meeting in 2012 last year. 
let me also take this opportunity to thank the united nations department of economic and social affairs, and igf secretariat (indiscernible) of this igf open consultation and mag meeting. 
it is, of course, a great honor for me to chair this meeting, together with the interim chair, mr. markus kummer. 
ladies and gentlemen, we have made some progress on promoting the development agenda in igf but we think more has to be done in order to make the internet play a very important role in promoting the human, economic, and social development as a (indiscernible) and safe global cyberspace. therefore, given the fact that the internet is developing so fast -- most of the time faster than the development of the legal aspects and the community readiness -- then we need to act fast as well, to set up new strategies to ensure the positive development of cyberspace at a national, regional, and international level. 
the agenda of this meeting today is very important. it has to be our priority to shape a fair agenda for the next igf that will be attractive to all stakeholders and continue to ensure that the igf meeting is productive and meaningful by addressing the key challenges that face all interested stakeholders into this world. 
the expected outcome of all our effort should lead to a more productive internet world and at the same time minimizing all negative impacts. 
excellencies, distinguished delegation, ladies and gentlemen, both the positive and negative of the internet have been discussed on many occasions, including the last three days of our wsis meeting. 
last december, during the world conference of international communication, wcit of itu in dubai (indiscernible) can be seen, of course, in the (indiscernible) itu. even the itu itself even set up a global security agenda, as well as promoting children protection globally. 
as we are discussing today, many aspects of the internet during wsis, our colleagues in u.n. meeting in vienna, this is their (indiscernible) meeting, also discussing the way to protect the people, the it system. basically all (indiscernible) including international cooperation for cyberlegislation and so on. 
many aspects of the internet will also be discussed in many other meetings. in the next meeting in april, also the cross-border data privacy will be also one of the main (indiscernible) group of apick in indonesia. at the end of this year, wto will also discuss e-commerce aspects of the internet and there are still many other discussions in many other meetings. regarding the internet development. compleansdz, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, realizing that there are so many aspects in the internet, some of them are even (indiscernible) as well as very sensitive, i believe the next igf meeting, where hopefully all of these aspects will be discussed comprehensively. it is very important to the meeting that we can set up the agenda in shaping the global internet in the near future. 
for further discussion of the agenda, as well as the detailed program of the next igf, i hereby hand the discussion process to the interim chairman, mr. kummer. thank you very much. 
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: thank you, mr. chairman. it is a great honor for me come co-chair this meeting with direct general (saying name), and i think this comes at an important juncture. as you rightly pointed out, we have seen at the world conference on international telecommunications in dubai that there were a number of concerns voiced by developing countries and the igf could indeed be a forum to address these concerns. 
the secretariat has prepared an agenda for this meeting, and i would like to recall the agenda and the purpose, desired main occupants. 
first and foremost, i think we are called upon to discuss what could be the theme for the meeting, and in the discussions leading up to this meeting there were two different approaches. either we decide on the theme now or we wait a little bit and we do it in a more (indiscernible) fashion after workshop proposals have emerged so we can what is actually of interest to the community. 
so this is a decision we have to take how do we want to proceed with identifying the theme for the next igf meeting. 
also, the selection of workshops is an issue that always comes up again, and the secretariat has said it would be nice to have clear and easily understood workshop selection criteria. 
also, in the contributions, there are a lot of talks about the number of main sessions, how long they should be, and what format they should take, and then the overall number of workshops, again, their duration, and connection to the themes and connection to the main sessions. 
we have had contributions, they're all posted on the web site, and the secretariat has prepared this paper and i will ask chengetai to sum up the contributions we have received. 
please, chengetai. 
>>chengetai masango: thank you very much, markus. i'll just give a brief summary of the paper. as we go along during the day, i will give a more detailed summary according to the topics that are going to be discussed so that we don't discuss everything now. 
[ audio interference, please mute ] 
>>chengetai masango: the secretariat called for contributions taking stock of the baku meeting and also looking forward to the 2013 igf meeting. 
we received a total of 15 written contributions and also we received some suggestions on the igf web site discussion board on the main themes and subthemes for igf 2013. 
all of these inputs can be found in their entirety on the igf web site. some contributions focus on evaluating the baku meeting while others cons state trade on their recommendation for the 2013 meeting. 
many expressed gratitude for the government of azerbaijan for the successful hosting of the seventh igf meeting. the seventh igf meeting was praised for continuing thigf's tradition of successfully bringing together an extensive range of leaders from the many communities interested in internet governance and providing a truly unique opportunity to have an open discussion on a wide range of issues. 
contributions stress the need for improvement in 2013 in the following areas: main sessions. participants should increase, are focus should be narrowed and panelists should be diversified. these are just the general comments. 
workshops. the amount of workshops should be reconsidered. workshop selection should be made more stringent, and workshop outcomes should be improved. 
for the other sessions, the other sessions should receive increased attention and emphasis. 
for participation, they need to improve participation from developing countries, women, youth, et cetera. 
requirements. this requires an increase in outreach and participant funding options. 
capacity-building activities during the igf meetings should be increased. 
and social media use should be increased. 
for local issues such as -- there were comments on the local issues such as internet connectivity, venue location, the layout, food and drink, and also coffee. it was stressed that it's important and should be made available. 
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: we have taken all of that into consideration planning the 2013 meeting. 
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: as i said, these are just the -- a short briefing and i'll discuss in more finer detail the requirements under the specific headers that markus will... 
>>chair kummer: okay. thank you, chengetai, for this. 
now, a question. 
how do we proceed? i wonder whether there are any sort of more general statements or do we dive right into the substance? in the past, there were quite a few more general statements so i would leave that opportunity open. 
at the outset, i would suggest not diving too much into the logistics. the logistics is very much something between the u.n. and the host country. the u.n. has very clear criteria, but the u.n. cannot impose the way how to do it to a host country as long as it is within reason. 
we have taken note of some of the comments. clearly, i think there's a strong preference to have the venue of the meeting not too far away, but the u.n. cannot impose that to a host country because many, many u.n. conferences are held in that fashion, and that's -- as long as it is up to u.n. standards, that has to be accepted. 
the same thing, internet, yes, we do understand it is important, but it is not easy, and big organizations like the igf, icann, have also found it not always that easy, but what they now usually do is they hire a specialized company -- this is not resource-neutral. this costs quite a lot of money. the secretariat can rely on advice from highly qualified engineers who have gained experience in advising host countries. you know, patrik faltstrom, many of you know him, he has a lot of experience in doing that, but things can happen. it's not -- cannot -- you can never guarantee that it works perfectly, but we are fully aware that this is an important issue. 
and, and, and, and i think the u.n. always asks the organizer to make sure that there's quick and cheap food available, including coffee, but again, it is the host country that has to organize this. free food is not a criteria. it's not required for the host country. nobody will ask you to provide free food. but sometimes host countries are generous and do provide it. 
so to cut a long story short, i would suggest not diving into these logistics issues. we have taken note of your preferences and i'm sure the host country has also listened. 
indonesia has a long experience in organizing international meetings, and i'm sure we're in safe hands. 
so who would like to take the floor? yes, parminder. 
>>kanwaljeet singh: i'm parminder from a ngo ig for change and i thought i would take this -- which i wanted to make -- actually ask a question on. 
i would like to know what is the status of the report of the working group on improvements to the igf, because this report was presented quite a long time back and has now been confirmed by the u.n. general assembly and in my understanding, the chief actor or at least one of the chief actors to implement it is the mag, and whether there is a program to do that, whether there is a timetable or whether the consultation is going to be involved about how to go ahead about it. so i just wanted clarifications on that. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank 
>>chair kummer: thank you. the united nations general assembly has taken note of the report and now collectively we are supposed to take that into account when planning the next meeting and it is also on the agenda. chengetai, would you like to comment? 
>>chengetai masango: yes. it has been approved the working group report is part of the input from this meeting. if you check on the web site, it is there. and it has been integrated into our agenda and it is taken the point given there as if there were general inputs from people coming in. so we are paying particular attention to the working group report. 
>>chair kummer: did you want to continue, parminder. i see the united states of america has asked for the floor. 
>>united states of america: thank you very much. good morning. the united states would like to reiterate its full support for the internet governance forum and we believe the igf is the epitome of the process is that have make it an economic engine. i don't need to tell it to this audience. i felt it necessary. it provides the premiere opportunity for governments in to be civil society technical community to address internet issues in a broad, creative and collaborative manner. u.s. would also like to congratulate azerbaijan, the igf secretariat, the multistakeholder advisory group and the stakeholder participants for a successful igf in 2012 that continue to build the impressive record for discussion and dialogue in the information society. we thank you indonesia for taking on that important task and hosting all the stakeholders in bali later this year. 
our observation is that the discussion matures each year and the dialogue deepens, taking advantage of the opportunity of the annual igf as well as the national and regional igf for the discussion to be candid and timely. 
we also note with appreciation that contributions of governments, industry, technical communities, civil society, alike to the cstd working group woks to the igf. we support effort while preserving a multistakeholder model format on which it depends and the absence of negotiated outputs. we want to highlight the recommendses that can be implemented in the lead-up up to bali including improving the visibility of the igf and all stakeholder groups and around the globe. strengthening the secretariat, including its funding, acknowledging the contributions of the host countries for their effort in the significant undertaking it is to host the igf as well as the stakeholders for their active participation and input and improving the participation in the igf and its preparatory process especially from developing countries. 
with everybody, we look forward to discussing themes and subthemes that will make for a dynamic and thought provoking forum in 2013. cross-cutting issues are inevitable and we encourage the accommodation of those cross-cutting issues and questions and workshops. 
in her o with the unesco and the plus 10 meeting, the secretariat of state noticed wsis is a social issue, a human rights issue and, quote, it is an economic issue as an open, reliable and trusted internet sparks greater le rye built and greater efforts in innovation. 
so in that vein and for your consideration, we suggest addressing science and technology for development, s and t for d, if you will, and its contribution for economic growth perhaps as a cross-cutting or subtheme but we look forward to the discussion today and ongoing preparation for igf bali. 
just on a personal note, of course, it is wonderful to be here again and to be here as a government representative this time. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. brazil. 
>>brazil: thank you, mr. chair. i would like to take this opportunity as well to organize this meeting, for convening this meeting. i think it is very important to start good preparation for the bali meeting. i would like to reaffirm brazil's full support for the work of igf. we think igf can present a unique contribution to this process. we are engaged in the review of the wsis implementation. we think in that regard we have highlighted in reaction to a question that was put forward before, that in bali, we are already looking at implementing the recommendation that contain the working group on (indiscernible) report. we think it is very important that we start implementing at a very early stage and very glad to see the invitation is to take place in bali. 
we concur with science and technology development should be one of 15, so we would be very glad to look into and give more emphasis to this theme in the igf work. and last, but not least, again i'll like to just in this forum to inform delegates that brazil has put forward its ability to host in 2015. we are, of course, waiting for a final decision on this matter, but this is something that we would be very glad if we could again host the meeting in this very important year in which it would be a wrapup of the second phase of igf. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for your intervention. we look forward speaking for all participants to coming back to brazil in 2015. icc/basis, you asked for the floor? no? 
okay. are there no more general statements? then we can dive straight into the agenda and basically issue number 1 on the agenda, the secretariat has published to discuss the main themes and subthemes of the igf 2013. science and technology for development has been mentioned as maybe a cross-cutting theme and that has the merit of linking the igf actually closer to the cstd. 
but before -- we have also in the synthesis paper various themes have been listed that have been proposed. but i think there is a binary decision we have to take before we go into the substance. do we want to take a decision now or do we want to take it in light of the workshop proposals when we see in may what are the themes that are proposed from the community in a bottom-up fashion? there is a merit to both approaches. if we decide on a theme now, it would guide people who are thinking of proposing a workshop, going in one direction. if we wait, then we would, i think, act in a true democratic, bottom-up fashion and we would then decide on the theme in may in the light of all the workshop proposals. 
comments on which approach to choose? yes, martin? 
>> nominet: martin boyle from nominet. i, like you, have got very little preference between whether we set a theme now or whether we do it in the light of proposals. but i still think it would be particularly helpful to those who are developing proposals to have an idea of the direction travel of what it is seen as being at least general themes in which we could or should be developing. 
and, in particular, for me one of the things that has come out from in particular the wcit discussions before christmas is that we should be trying to put a bit more of a practical spin, a practical outcome, a practical thinking, conclusions that come out that can then contribute to help people make the decisions that they will then subsequently make. 
so if we choose later, i would still like to get down on to the record that we should be trying to get some practical support and activity and help for people who have to then make decisions. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. 
icc/basis, ayesha hassan. 
>>icc-basis: thank you, ayesha hassan for icc/basis. i think it would be helpful for us to collect the ideas at this consultation and see what kinds of subthemes and main themes people are focused on for this year. 
i share nominet's input regarding a focus on practical outputs or take aways, et cetera. i think if we can collect some ideas here today, we may be in a position to shape an overarching theme which in some ways would be able to promote the igf in bali earlier given in past years the host country has benefited from having an overarching theme to start promotional materials on the web site, et cetera. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. and listening to both of you, i think -- oh, yes, norbert. 
>> civil society internet caucus: (saying name) talking about whether we should fix the theme now or later, this is not a question that we have had a chance to ponder really. one thing i would note though, there is a great value in having integrity in the sense of the theme that is obviously anounsed actually fitting what is going on at the igf meeting. i would -- trying to be not too politically incorrect -- still say that internet governance for sustainable development in the various aspects that were mentioned at the last igf theme is a wonderful theme. but what was actually accomplished at the igf did not actually match that wonderful theme. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. annriety. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: i was one of those who proposed the idea of developing the main theme afterwards. there are definitely different ways of doing it. possibly this year it is too late. but the reason why that occurred to me as a more appropriate way of doing it was because we spent approximately 1 1/2 days at last year's mag meeting arguing about what the main theme should be because the issue becomes very split have politicized. so, in fact, what the mag then does is to spend time on trying to achieve consensus on what the main theme should be rather than really trying to understand and absorb and process what the igf community expresses as its priority. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. lee, please? 
>>council of europe: lee (saying name). just one pragmatic idea about taking stock really. there is a lot of things that are being discussed now. i used the example of, for example, two weeks ago in vienna there was a meeting on internet 2013 on issues. there was a lot of events throughout the year which have a foreign policy dimension to them. the european dialogue has already started its planning process. we already have a draft outlined to be discussed so i think it is very important that we try to take stock of what's already been discussed. i would really appreciate some information collected together about what national igfs are thinking about if they had meetings and these sorts of things. 
>>chair kummer: izumi and then marilyn. 
>> izumi: a member of (saying name) and civil society. i would like to integrate the main theme in a substantial manner. however, given the time this year, it is slightly earlier than last year's one, we may need to conclude early. so what i would like to see is some kind of discussion today not spending too much time and taking some kind of temperature or the preferences of the defined stakeholders and maybe we try to come up online to narrow down to choose from, say, some of the major candidates kind of themes. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. marilyn. 
>>marilyn cade: thank you, my name is marilyn cade. i would like to support some of the comments i'm hearing about the importance of sort of generally taking stock of the options and the -- maybe the driving concepts that are coming out. i serve as the chief catalyst for the igf usa and certainly one of the things that has always been very helpful to us as an initiative has been being able to feed into and benefit from the igf. it would be extremely helpful, i think, to the national and regional igfs to have a general understanding of the direction of the theme and subthemes will go in. 
of course, they reflect both national and regional perspectives and won't be completely dedicated to that. but i think it helps us to support the bottom-up input process as well. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. and i'm tempted to say the other way around would equally helpful, that those are here that organize national and regional meetings, what are issues of concerns to them. 
but i think listening to the various statements, it doesn't seem to be an either/or question. it is rather a hybrid that seems to be an emerging consensus, that we don't need to agree right now on what is the main theme but that we listen a bit and see which direction it could take and then we finalize that at the next meeting. 
raul, please? 
>>raul echeberria: thank you, mr. chair. in latin america, we usually organize regional preparatory igf meetings at the end of august or more or less sometime in then. usually with meetings here in the room, there are a lot of of people involved in the organization of those meetings. 
but i think that's -- organizing the meetings in that part of the year, it is good for the regional purposes, but it is not enough good in order to influence the agenda and the main topics of the local igf. probably we could encourage the people who organize these kind of meetings around the world to do that early in the year in order to produce recommendations that could be taken in consideration by the mag and the organizers and probably at the time of the may meeting every year. that's an idea that came to my mind now. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that suggestion. i think that's also in line what others have said, that we maybe ought to revisit the whole planning process maybe to make it more organic. 
adam, yes, please. 
>> adam peake, glocom. i was wondering if we could hear the proposal that is have been coming in from the different stakeholders that have been staying on this issue. and then perhaps just take it to the mag tomorrow where they might give a very brief bit of thought to this responding to those proposals as they have been submitted and put it in the program paper as a general outline of what this is generally suggested and take it for a comment to come back in may and then the program paper would give some general direction to people and we wouldn't have to worry about wordsmithing which is annreitte's concern which is a hybrid approach listening to what people have said in consultation and then asking for more thought later. 
>>chair kummer: yes, i will ask chengetai to read out the proposals that have been made. i mean, what i heard today is also to have a more hands-on practical approach that was, i think, martin and aayesha. and i myself was struck that spam became an enormous issue and in the igf context, we dealt with spam back in athens in 2006 and it fell off the table. obviously people that were in athens were not the people in dubai. and we may revisit an issue like spam which may not be the top concern of people assembled here in this room, that we have to take into account that there are people out there who consider this a major issue. 
chengetai, please read out the proposals we received. 
>>chengetai masango: thank you, markus. 
proposals for the main themes received were internet governance for openness, sharing and improving the lives of all humanity. human rights and the implications for internet governance. public interest principles for the internet. shaping global principles for the internet. new service oriented approach in the world based on the internet of services and internet of things. the most popular proposals for possible subthemes included issues pertaining to human rights and principles, human rights, enhanced cooperation and internet for kids. the report of the working group on improvements to the igf recommended that a set of quality questions should guide the discussions and debates in the main sessions and throughout the annual igf meetings with a goal to then report the outcomes of such debates by stating clearly the convergent and divergent views and opinions on the guiding questions. 
some contributors gave suggestions on possible policy questions that could be considered. how to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of the global internet and what should be the mechanisms and executions involved in this process? 
what kind of general internet principles or principles for internet governance can frame relatively coordinated and harmonious policy responses to key global internet-related issues that impact global public interest. 
how to maintain the principles referring to -- referred to by some as net neutrality, that the price which an isp charges their customer for exchanging data packets via the internet shall not depend on the content of the data packets nor shall it depend on the party with whom the packets are exchanged. how shall (indiscernible) architectural principles for best service for all global traffic in the internet be preserved? that's the end of the principles. 
and then all proposals on main themes and subthemes are listed in the synthesis paper, so are the proposals for the main themes or subthemes -- oh, sorry. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. some of it went already into the main session. i think right now we are still at the higher level of main themes. what i heard this morning i think in both the interventions of brazil and the u.s. were science and technology also for development which i think is interesting in that it so far links the igf maybe closer to the work of the commission of science and technology for development and the economic growth, the internet as an engine for growth and innovation. this is also something that was mentioned. i think i sense there is a general agreement that it makes much sense to listen a bit which direction we could go without taking a final decision so that we have a sense of direction. 
indonesia, please. 
>>indonesia: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm (saying name) from indonesia on behalf of indonesia delegation. it is also a multistakeholder advisory group member and civil society. we proposed some keywords that may be could -- would be formulated in igf main theme such as development, internet (indiscernible), multistakeholder, cyber society and (indiscernible) cyberspace. we are also offering some of the main themes (indiscernible) that will be used in the next igf as follows: internet governance multistakeholders, two words, information society through participation. the reason behind this, the multistakeholder participation is the process of internet governance requires a brief of the review of the concept of governance itself. governance can be understood as the formation and operation of the joint rule of the game which define the actors and their responsibilities in the collaboration to work toward common goals and in resolving any disputes that arise. 
government arrangements are open, translated into a partnership between (indiscernible) and (indiscernible) actors. 
secondly is internet governance is the (indiscernible) of the development goals. this issue of the mpg is to be the benchmark of all the countries involved in the internet governance forum. this issue is particularly (indiscernible) because in the near future, there will be an evaluation to see the achievement of (indiscernible) throughout the world. 
and the third theme is internet governance to achieve sustainable development through people participation. 
and the last -- the fourth theme is internet governance for sustainable development through (indiscernible) and secure cyberspace. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: yes, please. 
>> my name is mary anne frank lynn. i'm speaking on me boo half of the principle price coalition. while we talk about substantive themes, i would like to read a brief -- an abbreviated version of the statement we sent in because we believe strongly that this next igf needs to be talking about substantive outcomes. so if i may turn to my screen for a minute. 
we think this would be a very worthwhile approach to be focusing on what needs to be done rather than on who will do it and which -- so that gets us out of constant discussions over a day a half as anretta pointed out. we think it would be worthwhile on developing principles on internet governance as touchstones. thee are general terms we are proposing that can guide global internet governance to help take away required public interest policies and other activities in this area. 
it will give us important leaves on what kind of constitutional framework best suit a global agreement on internet governance and we think -- and we hear, and we can see quite visibly this is the hot topic coming up to wsis in 2015. 
we also note in our statement that in vilnius 2010 this was made clear by the chair's report. we also noted in the statement that (indiscernible) has been leading the way with truly multistakeholder process by which principles can be moved forward into legal terms. and it is time for the igf to have the courage of its conviction and have a theme that can include principles as a touchstone that can allow also subthemes for people to explore these particular priorities and interests. 
so in that sense, i would just finish now to say that we propose as i have just said the overall theme of bali, the internet principles, possible overall themes being put forward public principles or shaping global principles for the internet because we know that titles are important. we would like to make that very clear now. principles for the internet. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. you rightly pointed out there is a tradition in the igf to have this discussion. we have that in vilnius, also last year in baku, taking stock had a strong segment on principles. 
i see apc and norbert again, apc, please. 
>> apc: good morning, my name is (saying name) from apc. we just wanted to make a few contributions for this topic. a general point on the igf improvements, apc propose that is an implementation form is formed to promote the recommendations of the cstd working group on igf improvements. such a group can be made up a combination of mag members and volunteers from the igf community. an ideal number would be around 10 people. 
we suggest there is flexibility in terms of main session themes. some of the traditional themes are necessary such as emerging issues and taking stock. but other themes can change from year-to-year based on priorities that the igf addresses. in in slight, we propose that the igf in 2013 focuses on the following theme. we leave it to the mag to decide whether this should be dealt through main themes or roundtables but we do believe it would be useful to use the entire last day of the igf as synthesizing the discussion that took place at workshops. the following themes for the igf 2013 or topics, enhanced cooperation, support input from ball. the igf can complement the efforts of the cstd working group on enhanced cooperation. 
number two, human rights. the apc proposes that human rights become one of the main themes for the igf. this seems to be a natural step forward considering the prominence of human rights at the igf, s 
>> it will facilitate a substantive continuation of the debate, particularly around diverse ways in which the technical and policy decisions surrounding internet governance contend with human rights. the mag and workshop organizers should include new human rights issues areas, such as anonymity and less talked about (indiscernible) lgbt rights. approaching issues such as network neutrality, affordable access (indiscernible) and also part of the -- thirdly, internet governance principles. apc supports a decision put forward by the internet rights and principles coalition that the igf should provide a space for establishing whether there is consensus on what principles should underpin public interest internet policy and policymaking processes. 
many institutions are framing their principles, such as the council of europe and the oecd. at national level governments are establishing principles that can be used to frame national policymaking. 
with the naming of these principles are how they will be applied and how they relate to existing global agreements and standards is still not clear. we, therefore, support the proposal that igf 2013 addresses these topics in more depth than previous igfs have done and what public (indiscernible) principles for the internet or shaping global principles for internet governance be considered as main themes. 
fourth, how to deal with spam animal wear. 
there's an area where capacity-building, and policy issues can be dealt with. 
and finally, to outcome or to not. 
[ laughter ] 
apc believes it is a discussion that should be put to bed. when mag members debate whether the igf should produce outcomes or not, it is doing just that. outcomes are emerging in multiple ways, in the form of follow-up events, better understanding of stakeholder groups' concerns, informal negotiations of (indiscernible) and upcoming policy processes, brainstorm solutions for difficult policy problems, suggestions for research and capacity-building programs, statements from presents and so o. 
these are negotiated agreements but they might eventually lead to such agreements. the more interesting question is how these outcomes should be captured and communicated. 
this is a task the mag must take seriously. 
these are not negotiated agreements but they might very well inform such agreements in the future. 
thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. what is the order? i think norbert is next and then we have martin from nominet, india, and brazil. 
okay. quite a number of speakers. norbert, please. 
>> thank you. again, norbert (saying name) for the civil society internet governance caucus, the intervention from the internet rights and principles coalition resonates very strongly with what we have in mind, as we have put forward not only a general theme as it was read, human rights and the implications for internet governance which we suggested at the main theme, but we also suggest some subthemes, which are: effective participation of all stakeholders in internet governance and internet rights and principles and internet for kids, which we suggest as overall subthemes. 
and i would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at the igf, especially in recent years of emphasizing human rights and it would be very valuable to take that forward in an even more outcome-oriented and implementation-oriented and moving it from the talking about it to actually getting it done stage, and i would very much appreciate if the program for the igf specifically encourages this kind of practical side to it to move the igf from being very much a talk and social event to something that has a very strong practical policy impact. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. before continuing the discussion, we were told by the interpreters to speak a little bit slower. especially when reading something. and also, after speaking, not to forget to turn the microphone off. 
now we have already moved in many ways forward from the subthemes into how to do it, but this is all relevant to the discussion. we have still quite a number of speakers. 
i think martin is next, then india, brazil, icc/basis, bertrand, andrea. okay. martin? 
>>martin boyle: thank you, chair, and we've heard a lot of issues being raised around the table, and i must admit i agree with the relevance and the importance of an awful lot of the subjects that have been raised. 
i thought it might be useful to -- as somebody suggested that we should take input from national and regional igfs to say something about some very preliminary thinking that we've done in the u.k. about -- about issues, and one of the things that interested me about that exercise was that we came up with quite a lot of consensus on just a few topics. 
the topics included cybersecurity, but very firmly put in the framework of human rights, and this came up in a lot of our discussions that human rights not being seen stand-alone, bolt-on, extra, or sitting in its own little group talking about human rights issues but to try and bring the understanding of human rights, of privacy, of freedom of expression into discussions on other topics, and doing that on cybersecurity was a very, very big and important area for doing this. 
and of course cybersecurity is a massively large subject. 
we also identified doing -- trying to do some convergence, trying to understand better the principles in which we work, was again seen as something that was worth doing, but again, i think that this is seen very much as providing a base, a starting point, for further deliberations on other issues, to give ourselves a better understanding of where we're going, and certainly if we look at practical outcomes, practical thinking, helping people make decisions, then starting off with principles is a very important thing to do. 
and then of course we had youth engagement and things like identity management and building trust. 
so i've run through those last ones very quickly. i'm sure they'll come up again in more detail. 
but where that then led me for thinking about where we should go as the -- an overarching theme, and i think somebody -- and i forget now who -- suggested that the overarching theme could well be the internet as an engine for growth, for me that seemed to be encapsulating an awful lot of discussion that we had had in the u.k. as being -- well, you know, that's where we would like to get to so long as we understand these other issues, these other themes that feed into doing that. 
i liked the idea that the u.s. came up with for science and technology for development as a subtheme -- sorry, as the main theme, but i don't see that as being out of step with the internet as an engine for growth, and, so in fact, i wonder whether we could go for something like the internet as an engine for growth, and then a second line of science and technology for development, and whether that gives us a good framework in which to to build in a lot of the rather more detailed work that contributes to achieving that. thank you, chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. 
india? (saying name), please. 
>>india: thank you, chair. this is (saying name) from the government of india. 
first of all, having taken the microphone, i just would like to extend our thanks and -- to the government of azerbaijan for hosting the seventh igf, and to congratulate the government of indonesia for being our next host. 
i would like to just touch upon a small point, and that is, i would like to express support for the idea from the government of the u.s. and brazil for science and technology for development, and then to slightly suggest a little change to say "science and technology in internet," to make it a little more focused, because that may help many people to join in. 
secondly, the idea to bring in science and technology as the cross--cutting, overarching theme maybe a little early, and my minister has proposed a theme in the igf baku. there he has mentioned the theme of transforming the internet to econet, and i would like to repropose the same for consideration for this next igf. 
and then in the end, to suggest whether the two issues which are very important to india, too. the issue of science and technology in the internet, the issue of internet principles, and the issue of enhanced cooperation, whether they could be considered as main themes for the eighth igf. 
thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. b brazil?brazil. 
[ audio interference, please mute ] 
>>brazil: thank you very much, mr. chairman. regarding the themes that are being suggested, brazil certainly agrees that the issue of international internet governance principles would be an interesting discussion to take place in the igf, as it has been one of the themes of the workshops that we have here in this -- in the meeting that ended yesterday and we think there is a great road that is open for the discussion of this issue and the igf is certainly a place where it could be discussed. 
we concur with the suggestion from our colleague from india, but i understand that her suggestion does not delete the word (indiscernible). 
[ audio interference, please mute ] >>brazil: (indiscernible) is a very important (indiscernible) for the debate that we want to -- to have.
there's another point that i would like to raise, not exactly a theme, but i concur with the colleagues that spoke before me on the -- on the value that the -- the discussions that we are having here today and tomorrow on defining the issues and the themes for the global igf, the value that these decisions will have for the national processes. the national igfs and the local -- the regional igfs that could benefit from this sort of (indiscernible) of issues that would be also a guide for the organization of these national and regional igfs as deemed appropriate. 
but we would like to raise the opposite point. i mean, i think the -- it would benefit if we also took a look and thought on spaces in the global igf where the regional and the maybe national igf, as considered appropriate, could sort of have a venue where to -- to -- to summarize and also to offer their perspectives that the process that they had regionally and nationally to the global igf. 
i think it's the case of many countries, and it certainly is the case in brazil, that we would like to have all the processes in a more organic manner. i mean, the national igfs, the regional igfs, and the global igfs, and then if we had this two-way approach, i mean, the local and regional benefitting from the things that are decided here, and on the other hand, having a space in the global igf to express their views and their conclusions and so on. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i think this is also an agenda item on how to create these better linkages for -- i mean, we have already touched on elements of overall organization, outcome, and so these are important elements but we definitely will revisit them, and i suggest maybe closing the list of speakers on the main theme issue. i still have a fairly long list on that, so -- but i mean, the mag can also revisit that, but i think there is an agreement that we don't need to decide on this now, and there are some strong statements coming out, principles i hear that -- by many speakers. also the economic aspect, science and technology for development, that don't necessarily make up -- it's not the overall theme, but they are here and i think they will guide the direction. 
human rights has also been mentioned, so -- and cybersecurity has been mentioned, and there is an overall, i think, also general thrust that we should think a little bit more about having hands-on sessions that provide practical guidance. spam animal wear, for instance, was mentioned as best practices, and also document outcome, but this will take us further in the discussion and i would now go back to my list of speakers. 
>> thank you. 
>>chair kummer: (indiscernible) andrea from (indiscernible) u.s., mary, finland, council of europe. is there anybody else who would desperately like to add something? yes, i can see canada and with that, can we close the list on -- u.s. yes, yes, sorry, i have you down. i did not read you out. 
[ laughter ] >>chair kummer: and yes, paypal, bill smith, okay. and -- yes. mathieu shares, yeah. okay. 
all right. 
icc/basis. 
>>icc/basis: thank you very much. we support the prior comments about perhaps framing the main theme in terms of the internet for development and growth, and we feel like this can be used as an umbrella-type concept to wrap in a lot of the discussion this morning. 
we really feel like the -- the igf has a unique ability to talk about the internet as a fundamental catalyst and engine for transforming economies and for transforming societies, and that can be a nice linkage of all the different things that we've heard today. 
one point that we wanted to emphasize is, sometimes the igf is always looking around the corner at the next issue, but we think it's extremely important when we look around at the broader landscape that the igf tackle the fundamental issues of investment, infrastructure, deployment, the practical issues of how countries and how societies are going to deploy the internet and get access to the internet in the first place. 
secondly, to take on some of the issues around security and the practical issues of operating the internet and making it safe and secure. and third, dealing with the transform able impact as others have mentioned that the (indiscernible) science and technology can make on society. we think that can be wrapped into both economic growth, responsible social development, as well as the human rights issues that we heard today. 
the internet has a transformational effect on all fronts, and what we are urging is that there be a balanced approach to this igf that really incorporates the unique breadth that the igf has to offer in assessing a global view on both these fundamental aspects of deploying the internet, as well as dealing with the practical concerns with operating it, and then finally the -- the important social impacts that the internet has on society. 
and we look around at the landscape and think that the igf has to both assert its own space and -- and not let other organizations or processes fill that space, but it also has to look around and figure out how can we, as others have said, provide valuable inputs into others, and the unesco meeting this week was a great example of how there can be a great interrelationship between the igfs and other organizations. 
so i think the positive thinking we've heard this morning on all of these things can be very helpful in thinking about the main themes as we do our work this week. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. robert guerra, please. 
>>robert guerra: this is robert guerra from the citizen lab at the university of toronto. 
chair, thank you for giving me a few minutes. 
i'd like to just comment on some earlier points that you made. first of all, in regards to the igf being mentioned in other spaces such as the wcit, i think if there are other spaces where the igf has been mentioned as a space that key issues can be discussed, it would be interesting to make a list of those issues to make sure that everyone is aware of them, and so they can be on the agenda possibly to be discussed. 
i think in regards to whether setting the overall theme now or in may, i think as we're going forward now, identifying possible themes and then having a call i think would be good, but i think identifying some issues and getting feedback on that, i think, could be useful. 
i'd also like to echo something that hasn't been mentioned by some of the other commentators, and that is the -- the delegation from indonesia did make comments and they're the host country and the country from the region, and they have done a consultation and put forward ideas from consultation of different stakeholders, so i think we should give those considerable thought. 
and from the perspective of the citizen lab, i think the idea of science and technology for development is definitely one that we would support. and it might be worthwhile also to talk about cybernorms and the right approach to some of the issues as well. 
thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. bertrand de la chapelle. 
>>bertrand de la chapelle: bertrand de la chapelle from the internet and jurisdiction project. 
i've listened carefully to the different comments today. 
i would like to suggest that we take a moving picture, rather than just a still picture. 
the igf is now entering its -- approaching its eighth annual meeting, and if i look at how things have evolved in the discussion, the igf has produced a remarkable outcome that was very visible during this week here. i.e., progress on sensitive topics. 
if i look at how the issue of enhanced cooperation and principles were discussed six years ago, it's very simple. six or seven years ago, it was not even possible to put them on the agenda. 
yesterday and the day before yesterday, there were two workshops on principles and two workshops on enhanced cooperation. both of them have, in my view -- and i hope it's shared by other participants -- displayed a remarkable move forward in terms of the desire of the stakeholders to work together on those issues and to address those issues. 
i think, therefore, we should recognize, irrespective of the other discussion on main sessions, workshops, and so on, that there are two key threads that have emerged as an outcome of the discussions in the -- in the igf, and that those two threads are, at the higher level, the issue of principles -- and they are very strong messages both in nairobi and in baku, and i happened to have had the privilege of being either moderator or a panelist on both taking stock and way-forward sessions in nairobi and in baku, and the message already at that time was very strong towards this notion of a compendium and so on. 
so principles and how to deal with the proliferation -- positive proliferation -- of principles is one track. 
the other one being the evolution towards understanding enhanced cooperation or enhanced cooperations as a desire to identify concrete issues and make the different actors collaborate together to solve them. 
it is, therefore, an interesting second track. 
operationally, i would suggest to use those two tracks to encourage the articulation with different workshops that are necessarily going to be proposed, and to have something that makes an introductory session at the beginning of the week, and have a closing session at the end of the week for each of those two tracks, so that the discussion can evolve during the week instead of having the usual problem that we encounter in terms of articulation between workshops and main sessions. 
so for instance, without getting into too much detail, the goal would be to have at the beginning of the week two maybe 1 1/2-hour sessions on each of those two threads and to allow people to organize their workshops during the week to feed into those two threads, so that at the end of the week, we can come back to two other sessions and see how progress has been made. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. and if you allow me to pick up on what you of said on the impact and outcome of the igf, i fully agree with you, the igf has not been very good at documenting the outcome and the impact. particularly (indiscernible) impact. and i would add the use of the term "multistakeholder." 
there's no organization that respects itself that does not use the term "multistakeholder." that was clearly, i think, a notion that was pioneered by the igf. 
next speaker, united states of america. 
>>united states: thank you, chair. i just wanted to make a point of clarification in the discussion of the main theme. 
first of all, i'm glad if the notion of cs -- s&t for d is resonating with folks. i'm glad for that. 
but i had put it forward as a cross-cutting theme or a subtheme, and in recognition that really the main theme needs to be as overarching -- more overarching, as possible, and possibly -- and so i just want to make that clarification and take that sort of maybe off the table for a main theme, but to incorporate it as people like. 
and with regard to a main theme, i think overarching is very key and not weighting one element of the discussion necessarily over others in the discussion of main themes. something that can encompass all the ideas that people have been putting forward. 
thank you, chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. point well taken, but it is on the table as a direction to go, but i also agree. i think when we formulate the main theme, it should be a little bit snappier. science and technology for development sounds very u.n.-ish. 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: but we need to have a theme that sounds attractive, i think, also to people who maybe don't normally go to u.n. meetings. 
i think economic growth sounds maybe more attractive to policymakers, but it may be a little bit one-sided as it is not as overarching as the full societal and transformational -- i think jeff mentioned; i like that word -- -- the transformational impact of the internet. i'm not sure whether that's snappy enough, but i think we also have to think a little bit on how to attract people who might not necessarily have been to an igf before. 
andrea, speaking (indiscernible) correct? 
>> thank you. thank you, mr. chair, and first, let me say it's really nice to congratulate you for your appointment. it's really nice to see you there. actually, it makes me feel younger to see you back there. 
[ laughter ] >> i think when i was -- back four years ago, it's a familiar feeling and so i must give you (speaking in a non-english language.). to the point of the main theme and then to add a few points after. 
as a main theme from (indiscernible), we propose to evolve the main themes that have been suggested so far, particularly in the (indiscernible) diversity are proposing to have a main theme focusing on public access. we have seen that. it has been coming through different sessions and workshops in the past igfs. 
and we think it deserves its own space. it's important how you access the internet. it's important that the world has public access to internet (indiscernible) can lead to that, and (indiscernible), of course, is willing to work more into that's correct and there is also a dynamic coalition on public access, so that's one of our points we want to make for this mag. 
just a few things briefly is regional events. we're really pleased to see that regional issues are mushrooming across countries and regions, and we are -- as (indiscernible), we are libraries from 160 countries. we actually are doing a great work involving them into participating in the regional event nah (indiscernible) to figure out where niece events are happening. i know it is not always so easy. and ways to involve local stakeholders into that. 
we are happy to give our support into that, to tackle into the (indiscernible) library's network. 
on the dynamic coalitions, as part of the dynamic coalition won access and dynamic coalition (indiscernible) outcomes of the igf, i think there should be also thinking on how to make them more active and how to reword them. probably the wording is a function of the how to make them more active. 
one idea could be to get them on the mag and if they are active enough, we are proposing actually implementing stuff that have been discussed during the igf. that could be a good way to get them back into the whole igf process. 
and one last thing is about what i call (indiscernible) contribution to the -- to the discussion, the convergence. we -- before, we were speaking about the outcomes (indiscernible) igf. i think what just ended yesterday can be seen as an outcome of the igf. 
[ audio interference -- please mute ] 
-- that were made to a broad multistakeholder support yesterday was a final statement made from multistakeholder recommendations, and that's an outcome that i think the igf has to claim more of the influence it has even in the wsis forum. 
(indiscernible) even the name wsis forum came after the igf. at the beginning it was a long u.n.-ish (indiscernible) implementation and follow-up that nobody would understand, and now even that you call it a forum. i mean, that's a good outcome. so in light of that, i think we should give more thoughts on the convergence, also the review processes. we're all going (indiscernible) 2015 the wsis mushroomed in several different, let's say, (indiscernible) and it's interesting to pull all of that back and see what we can learn from each other, and i think that the igf in this moment can teach a lot of -- of lessons learned to the other organizations. 
and last point, i was following the name meeting and i heard the multistakeholder word coming up in several occasions. i thought that was interesting because you would never expect that. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you so much. thank ifla stands for international federation of library associations but i think it came across that you speak on behalf of libraries. i think the point is also well-taken that we have to project a little bit in view of 2015 what will happen after that and work towards that trajectory. i think that is an important mark. 2014 will not be the end. it will be an important meeting, but there will be a 2015 meeting and we will think what will happen after it. will the igf continue? and if so, it will be a decision taken by the u.n. members. the decision will not be taken in a multistakeholder mode. 
but we have to work -- if we want to, we have to work toward that decision. 
european commission. 
>>european commission: thank you, chair. and good morning to all. i just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that were already made this morning. on the outcomes of the igf, yeah, we don't have negotiated agreement and we're not looking for them. but having no result, no conclusions means that we're going to lose a lot of what has been discussed. 
so as the chair said, the igf hasn't been exemplary in documenting its outcome. let's make it exemplary because then we can use what we do to feed into the discussions of those who do take decisions. 
a short point on logistics, i think -- there were a lot of comments on logistics. and there are comments on logistics in the report by the group on improving the igf. i think it is not just about comfort of the participants; it has to do with issues of connectivity which means remote participation. 
it has to do with facilitating travel also for those who are on a smaller budget to the igf. so i think it's important to take at least some recommendations on logistics very seriously. 
on the themes, again, i would like to echo the chair. i think one of the main words is to take it forward. whatever we choose as themes, we need to make sure there is an evolution from the previous igfs. already in the last igf, many workshops tended to repeat themes, repeat discussions. we need to make sure that in the final selection we have some kind of intellectual evolution from what was discussed before. and the fact that something has been discussed before like spam doesn't mean we should cut it out. just one word on spam, it's not obviously a major issue for some countries. it is definitely not a major issue for countries of the european union. but it is very big for some developing countries. it made its way into an international treaty. that means there are a lot of concerns around it. let's not ignore something like that. 
one last thing, i'd like to echo brazil on the point about regional igfs. i know we're going to discuss this later, but, indeed, it would be great if we could have a venue at the igf where regional igfs could give something to the general igfs and maybe discuss amongst each other. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. just a brief comment. i don't think we should not take the logistics seriously. we know they are problems and challenges. and i think collectively, we are taking this very seriously. 
mary, next on my list, please. 
>> thank you. this is mary (saying name) from ministry of affairs for finland. i listen for the discussion here and some of the keywords that have risen from interventions, development and human rights. human rights as a cross-cutting issue has risen from our national multistakeholder process and will be one of the themes of our finnish internet forum next time. 
and many have reminded us on the very interesting discussions that we have had here in paris with enhanced cooperation and of the working group on enhanced cooperation which will be in the middle of its deliberations as we meet in bali. 
and, therefore, i would like to make one suggestion for a theme which would be enhancing multistakeholder cooperation for growth development and human rights through the internet. 
i think growth is also important as we meet in the times of economic crisis. and it's also intertwined in the questions of spam and all the challenges we have. how do we combat those for more growth also through the internet? 
so this is my suggestion. maybe we could play with words to make it more catchy. but these are definitely the keywords that came up of this discussion. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much for this. and i point out, growth can also be social growth. it does not necessarily need to be economic. so this is something on the table we're considering. 
do we have a remote participant? why don't we give remote participant precedent as we always say how important it is to bring them in. luka, please. 
>> so, okay, luka (saying name), remote moderator. we have two suggestions from remote participants. first one is a theme suggestion from veronica cretu. and she is suggesting internet as an enabler for social accountability and engagement for improved results. and there is a comment from deirdre williams, and she is says there is a need for much proved publicity and dissemination of the igf ideas to people outside of the "igf insiders." 
>>chair kummer: thank you. 
next, council of europe? 
>>council of europe: thank you, mr. chair. lee hibbard, council of europe. (indiscernible) i'm the internet governance coordinator in the council of europe. part of my job is to take stock of what goes into the igf and what comes out of the igf and to brief my colleagues and to keep them abreast, also member-states for that matter. and for taking stock is quite important (audio interference). if we look at baku, for example, i did some counting. i count the events which concern us and i think i counted more human rights-related events in baku than ever before which i think is quite revealing. that's the point i want to make. it is revealing to see what is happening. why is that? why is that? why are more people calling for more discussions on human rights? and are they concerned that the internet is moving away from their concerns and the internet being a people-centered environment? is it trying to take stock of the why? are we asking that question enough? why increasingly do they have a human rights dimension to these meetings? are there underlying questions of traditions, values, cultures, even national sovereignty for that matter? 
that brought me to thinking about the why of the eurodig which is taking place in lisbon on 20-21 june and the overarching theme is -- and this is just a thought, internet for society, how to serve the public interest?, for example. just to add to that more food for thought, what the council of europe does and is doing for the next few years, thinking about questions such as what is internet freedom, is it more of freedom of information and access to information as we know it? what does it mean to say "do no harm to the internet"? what measure should states and factors commit to, to ensure that there is no harm? and what frameworks of commitments and understanding do stakeholders need to commit and engage and exchange? 
and one final point goes back to the question of internet rights and principles and the work of a compendium of rights for internet users, do users know how to effectively exercise their human rights online? thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. canada? 
>> canada: thank you, mr. co-chair. there have been a number of interesting ideas raised this morning and certainly found the discussion very interesting. i just wanted to support the number of interventions that have raised the importance of addressing practical issues such as cybersecurity, spam and malware. i'm thinking in particular of the comments from nominet but also their written submission and some of the ideas they have formulated. 
i think this is very appropriate for the igf to do. i take on board the comment that not all igf members and not all governments in particular put issues like spam at the top of their agenda but as our colleague from the european commission was just pointing out, for some governments, it is a very serious issue and has a lot of effects, even economic effects. and i think there is vast experience in this -- in this forum, the igf. 
when we were at wcit and some of these issues were raised, a number of us made the observation that a forum like wcit is not the right place to be discussing them which raises the entirely legitimate question if not a place like wcit, then where? and i think igf is an answer to that question. thank you. 
(audio buffering.) 
>> suggested by nominet for a subtheme on cybersecurity and human rights. you can't consider one without consideration of the other. i would like to talk about a couple of things. i think the igf is incredibly modest. a number of people today have referred to the importance of understanding the accomplishments of the igf. and i think there is something we need to take seriously. when you think about the regional igfs that have sprouted up, the national igfs, the variety and diversity of programs that are in place around the globe because of the igf and we have no idea really what the national impact has been of the igf because we are not doing an accounting of that impact. 
so i would like to see the igf actually put in place process, maybe it is a session, maybe it is an activity, to account for the accomplishments of the igf and the kind of impact it has had around the globe. 
i'd also like to suggest that we really think about the term "multistakeholder." i would like to see the igf have a session or an opportunity for us to talk about multistakeholder best practices, including something very practical. 
how do you implement effective multistakeholder processes? and as the igf is a flag waver for multistakeholders, it is a perfect place to hold it. 
the last thing i would like to say is in terms of outcomes or outputs, i think that it's important that the igf look at how its outcomes or outputs are structured. at the moment -- and coming back to this after a couple of years being away, they are not hugely helpful. they were not hugely valuable in terms of what can you actually do with them and now we are not talking about recommendations or agreements or this or that. we're just talking about outputs and making them significantly more valuable and usable to policymakers or stakeholders or whoever when they go back to their countries and they say: okay, we have a solution, a proposed solution, or a variety of solutions for a particular problem. i would like to see us getting back to a real review of best practices a real look at how we can make what we do far more practical and usable. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: i think there is a broad sense of agreement on that, that the outcomes can and should be better documented. the question is basically how. and this is also not resource neutral. either you hire an excellent consultant and there are people who can do it, or you do it collectively, the mag works harder on that. 
but, again, the mag, these are -- it is all voluntary work and it can be hard work. but this is definitely something we have to think about. and i still have speakers, and right at the end of the room, bill, you asked for the floor. please, you have the floor. 
>> thank you very much, mr. chair. actually quite a pleasure for me to be here today and to see markus up there with chengetai. brings back excellent memories. 
i guess i would like to suggest a major theme for the event and listening to everything, and that would be an engine for growth and advancement, the internet, an engine for growth and advancement. 
markus, you mentioned that growth is not only economic. it can be societal. and i think by recognizing that, we can -- it encompasses quite a breadth of topics that we could -- that we could include, for example, science and technology, human rights and freedom of expression. we could include business models, business models that have come up as a result of the internet that may not be well-known all around the world. access and diversity, where i would throw in things potentially like exchange points, local content, local hosting. 
and i also suggest that we need -- and i've heard calls here for this -- to have higher-level sessions. i think in my mind, that would be perhaps a smaller number of them, especially the lengthy plenary sessions that we've been subjected to in recent years. 
practical sessions i've heard a call for, where this might be sort of the traditional workshop, 90 minutes. and i think we could have some very good working sessions as well where they would be during the week, perhaps a half day of intense discussion on topics, for example, spam. it is definitely an issue. however, there are methods to approach it, to mitigate it. they exist. and they are evolving. 
and having been at the wcit and listened to the issues that i recognize are real, i have to respectfully disagree with those who believe that a treaty-level instrument is going to have a practical, positive impact on spam. the way we deal with spam and things like that is at the lowest possible levels on the ground and taking very strong measures and working cooperatively. 
so it is good that we are talking about these things, but just writing it in a treaty is not going to solve the problem that countries have. talking about it in a practical working session at the igf would be helpful. 
finally, with respect to comments made by matthew shares, i would be happy to co-submit a proposal on multistakeholder models and practices and to run such a group at the igf. i think that's a fabulous idea because all, too, often we hear the term bandied about but in reality when we get into perhaps what is declared as a multistakeholder meeting, we find out, in fact, it is something quite different. 
so i think that would be a very good thing a very appropriate thing for the igf to do. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. and i think it would tie up with the comments that the igf has not been particularly good at documenting its success, and that would be basically claiming ownership of the term "multistakeholder" and defining it and setting a yardstick. i think that would definitely, to me at least, make sense. 
raul? 
>>raul echeberria: thank you, mr. chair. this week on monday (indiscernible) say that the information society should be seen from the perspective of human rights and i very much agree with this approach. so i would like to show my voice to those that are proposing human rights as one of the most prominent overarching issues, topics for igf. 
and i think it shouldn't be only for this year's meeting because this is an issue that should remain for every igf meeting for the next few years because human rights will remain unfortunately an issue around the world for many years. 
i like very much the way the finnsh representative combined the development and cooperation and human rights. it could be nice if we could combine those ideas, those values in the main theme of the igf in indonesia. 
regarding other topics to be discussed, i think cybersecurity, cybercrime are definitely important topics and i differentiate the two topics because many times we speak about cybercrime, cybersecurity if they are the same thing. and they are different things. both of them are very important, but we have to deal with them in a different manner. so i think those issues should be prioritized because those are areas in which i think we have the challenge to demonstrate that the multistakeholder model is able to provide some progress and some solutions for dealing with those really big problems that we have today. 
we have, of course, identified some specific points because i echo those that have said that we have to focus in practical issues and concrete things and not to discuss just those themes in a very general way. 
so i think my last comment is regarding the outcomes. i think that we have a broad agreement that we are ready to move one step forward and try to produce better outcomes from igf. and as you say, mr. chair, the challenge now is to deal with the implementation of that. but i think if we agree this is where we have to focus how to implement that so the works are written down. 
this week we had a very good experience here at unesco as a way of dealing with this issue probably. it could be a basis for discussion in the mag meeting. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that, both for the substantive comments and the procedural aspect indeed. this was also a question in our minds. can we learn from the unesco's way of proceeding? the also more focused, ask workshop organizers to be focused on outcomes. and security, security has been with us right from the beginning. but maybe we also have to rethink a little bit how to deal with it because it is also an issue of major concern for governments. and i think as martin said, the multistakeholder framework can -- and others, can maybe provide better answers. but we may have to rethink on how to frame it. 
anriette, you also asked for the floor.anriette, you asked for the floor. 
>> going back to the multistakeholder term, well, we are talking about -- 
>>chair kummer: for the scribes, it is not anriette esterhuysen. 
>> ana neves from portugal. 
>>chair kummer: i was not speaking clearly enough. so my fault. 
>> ana neves: now it is clear. good. my point is about the term multistakeholder and multistakeholder principles because we are discussing sometimes the more internet governance, the principles are not so much multistakeholder principles. it was already said today here what multistakeholder means and its importance and organization that doesn't respect itself -- well, nowadays it has to say it is multistakeholder. 
but what is multistakeholder? what does that mean? and so my main point is that besides the internet governance principles, we have to see and discuss what are the principles of the multistakeholders. and i think that when we discuss these principles of the multistakeholders, we start to see that we have multi-governments, multi-civil societies, multi-private sector and multi-technical communities. and it is interesting and it is rich to now we are at the level to better understand where we are. 
and so if we understand where we are, it's better to understand why it's so difficult then to implement any action because it is not governments that are going to implement anything because we have multi-governments, governments, they are all different. 
besides that, i must say i like a lot the title that representative from finland put forward for the igf to play with, with the words "enhance" and "enhance multistakeholderism." 
i think it would enrich the title to include something related to empowerment, capacity enhancement or building. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i basically have closed the list. but in the spirit of inclusiveness, let's also listen to remote participants. and i think our colleague from russia whose name i can't remember also asked for the floor. remote participant first. and there is one more. russia also, okay. 
>> thank you, markus. we have two comments from remote participants. the first is a suggestion from the theme of the next igf from (saying name) from the internet governance caucus. and she is suggesting economies, communities, challenges and nations and opportunities. 
and then we have a suggestion from victor from cameroon that is suggesting to have a small guide on multistakeholder igf best practices and he is saying that having national and regional igfs is a way to implementing multistakeholder igf process and to share multistakeholder ig best practices. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. please recall your name. my apologies that i can't remember it. 
>> andrea (saying name). higher school of economics at the university. first, i would like to thank the government of azerbaijan for the successful 7th annual meeting of the igf which was very successful for our delegation as well. and then i would like to say that i totally agree with absolute majority of delegations which propose human rights on the internet as one of the major topics of discussion. 
one note which i could simply make on this that the human rights is a complex issue which needs a complex approach to it. and so that's why i agree that we need the specific combined topic which allows common approaches for internet governance with the convergence of institutions and convergence of approaches. 
for example, we understood through the legal sociological, technological approaches, all of these issues, i think, are important to serv 
>>chair kummer: thank you. and please, can you introduce yourself? 
>> thank you very much, chair. my name is michael (saying name) name. i'm also from the (saying name). 
i would like, first of all, to say that it's a pleasure for me being here, and on behalf of (saying name), i would like to focus on business aspects. 
it was already raised by -- by the ui, i think, that today (indiscernible) the service sector has become the biggest and fast growing business sector in the world, which also (indiscernible) quality of life of people all around the world, and our economy is service-oriented, and actually we have internet which makes businesses going globally, right? 
and which makes services being global. 
that's why we also propose (indiscernible) contribution on service-oriented approach based on (indiscernible) of services and (indiscernible) of things because when we are talking about service-oriented approach of the global economy and global services change relationships between the people and companies. with the use of internet, and when we're talking about internet governance, we should also consider that it influences business which is based on the internet. 
that's why there are several possible subtopics, probably, about new business models of the internet, new models of the internet, possibilities for personalization of services including people with disabilities, and also security issues. 
so among such important topics like human rights, the internet, technological issues, i think probably it is necessary also to include business issues when we're talking about internet governance. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i see there are more flags coming up. i wanted to close this, but can we really close the list now? 
i see (indiscernible) and is that you, patrik? okay. (indiscernible) and then patrik. 
>> thank you, chair. i would like to offer a suggestion of theme with a view of trying to -- to covering the different subissues we've discussed this morning, which could be cooperation for growth, development, and human rights, best practices for sustainable knowledge societies. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. patrick? 
>> thank you. good morning, my name is patrick ryan. i'm with google. and although the topics and themes of the igf are extremely important, my intervention now is focused on the funding of the igf. it's a topic that's rarely, if ever, addressed at the open consultations and i realize we're talking about other things, but i hope you'll permit me to make my intervention now, so that we can talk about this maybe a little bit over lunch and at break. 
let's face it, money is really hard to talk about, and so it's completely avoided in many cases, or taboo. 
it's crucial, if not existential topic here, and so i want to be sure to bring it up. and to put some light on it today. 
the igf operates on a shoestring budget. it's astonishing the amount of work that chengetai accomplishes, with part-time colleagues and several volunteers. 
in order to do it to do many of the things that the participants want, such as increasing outreach and collaboration with the developing world, providing a revamped web site, tracking information and reporting on successes, the igf needs our financial support. 
the funding for the igf is itself a multistakeholder endeavor. contributions are voluntary, and they come from member states, the private sector, and civil society. 
although we don't yet have an overall view of the total budgetary needs for the igf, our colleagues at un did he say a and at the igf secretariat on are working on that and have promised to share that information with us very shortly. this willer very important as we set fundraising activities for 2013. last year the igf raised almost $900,000 from a total of 15 contributors. about nine contributors are from the private sector and ngos, and six are from governmental entities. 
in this regard, i want to call out special recognition for the government of finland, which has contributed nearly 25% of the annual budget on its own. 
just a few more numbers. 
in a typical year, the igf is attended by around 2,000 people from more than 130 countries. most all of the governments around the world praise the value of the igf. we talk about it in other context at itu as the alternative, but with only six governments contributing to the igf, there is lots of opportunity. 
there is no reason why half of the countries of the 130 countries that attend it, shouldn't contribute in some way. those numbers don't need to be high on an individual basis, but some contribution is important. 
i realize that government budgets are tight, but i respectfully call on governments to find a way to contribute to this effort. there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to turn the number of government contributions from nine to 90 this year. 
similarly, the private sector needs to step up. 
businesses like google believe in the values of the igf, but our business models also depend on the success of the internet. it can sometimes be a challenge to have private sector contributions from any single company or any single government to be too large because of the perceptions that can flow from that. we don't want the igf to be perceived to have been bought by any single company or government. 
at the same time, the number of private sector contributors should greatly increase, and i see no reason why the overall number of private sector contributors should not nine from nine to 90 as well. ladies and gentlemen, if we can accomplish this simple fundraising task, the opportunities for the igf will be far greater than we are now. as we enter the eighth year, it's time to put our money where our mouth is, to walk the talk, and to show that we support the multistakeholder environment and that we mean it. 
i want to draw your attention to the funding tab on the igf web site, which thanks to chengetai and the work of undesa provides a lot more information on how to fund. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, patrick. while this was completely off topic, i think it was nevertheless very helpful. 
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: this is also, i think, a lot of the recommendations of the working group on igf improvements are extremely helpful, but -- and not always resource-neutral. yes, of course it would be nice to do this and to do that, but the secretariat, which is comprised by one single person, there are limits to what this guy can do, and this is something we need to bear in mind. 
so i would also suggest when approaching the report that we make maybe proposals that are resource-neutral but there are others that need more resources, that we make the distinction and look at those that can be implemented without additional resources as a kind of low-hanging fruit. 
i mean, they -- "okay, that can be done," but some others cannot be done unless we have more resources. but resources can also be given through in-kind contributions. there may also be volunteers that come up to take on the task. 
there is another call for the floor. nurani, yes. 
>> knew, mr. chairman. my name is in your rami. i work for net noticed. internet infrastructure organization in sweden. 
it's great to be here today and it's great to see you up there again, markus, and i think there have been some very good discussions today. 
i'm going to -- i'm going to keep it very brief, since i know that we are -- we want to move forward. 
i think there have been a few very good ideas being tossed around today, and i think i'd like to associate myself with the speaker previously, who pointed out that it's important that the internet -- that the igf continues to evolve, and i think we need to show that in the program and we need to show that through the main themes that we have. 
the themes might just seem like a banner or a tag line, but it really sets the agenda for the whole igf, so we shouldn't underestimate the -- the importance of that. 
by showing also that the igf continues to evolve, i think we show that by taking on new themes, that maybe the igf wasn't mature enough for before, so i think a few people have mentioned the human rights aspects and i think the internet is an enabler for human rights. it's a very important and current topic that i think the igf should pick up on. 
i also really like (saying name) thoughts from the finnish delegation about playing with the words of "enhanced" and "enhanced multistakeholderism." 
i think that's something that would be good to pick up on. 
and then just a final comment, not necessarily on the main themes, but i was listening in to the -- the workshop yesterday on enhanced cooperation, and the point there was made about how the igf is very inclusive and -- but -- but we also need to be aware of the different stakeholder groups that have different ways of interacting with the igf. 
so if we want it to be more inclusive, we need to take that into consideration, so for example, by -- by -- if we want more participation from certain governments, we might need to do more to reach out to them. we might need to -- to do -- to specifically invite them and even to organize pre-events, for example, at the igf that motivates them to come and participate. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. 
and really last speaker on this segment, qazi al-shatti, p please. 
>>qusai al-shatti: thank you, mr. chair, and welcome to the internet governance hall again. 
first of all, i would like to (indiscernible) azerbaijan agreement for their hospitality in organizing this event, igf meeting, and (indiscernible) their beautiful country of azerbaijan, so i would like to thank them for that. 
i would like to echo the comments that the igf needs to evolve and the evolvement of the igf should be a revising the topics and the themes that -- to be discussed. 
i would like -- we'd like to have more focus on having a more open, inclusive internet, which we feel that it is still a current and important issue, as well as promoting a multistakeholder model for internet governance on what -- at global and regional levels. thank you, mr. chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. okay. now looking at the timetable, i realize that we're well behind what chengetai has proposed. he said he should move on, i think, some time ago, but i think it was a very good discussion and we touched on many not just aspects of the main themes, but the -- also touched on organizational aspects and on how to improve on the functioning. 
so basically the next half hour, we can start discussions on the organizational aspects and on the main sessions. 
i think we have already touched on that, and i think the strong notion here in the room is is that the igf is evolving, so maybe also that you need to revisit a little bit the concept of the main sessions. 
there are certain parameters that are given. the three-hour main session is given -- is dictated by the contracts with the interpreters. that doesn't mean that we cannot break it into segments but we cannot have, for instance, two 2 hour sessions because that's not how the interpreters work. they work in 3-hour segments. 
so that we have to accept. 
but i think there was a strong notion in the written contributions that three hours is too long to have one subject, one panel; that at least we should think in breaking it up in two. and also, i think what i heard from the discussions, that maybe we need new subject matters, like (indiscernible) written contribution maybe more focused sessions. 
we discussed that years ago, but i think in the end the mag was always moved back into the comfort zone of having the same titles. they have evolved slightly. you know, what we had first was security but -- we dealt with security and openness separately so that moved into security, openness and privacy, so there was an evolution, but my feeling was at least the past two sessions -- past two igf meetings were more the opportunity to walk around, that the energy was much more in the workshops than in the main sessions. 
some contributions said we should not have workshops in parallel with the main sessions, which is, i think, almost impossible to organize unless we want to have workshops very early or very late or during the lunch break, but we earlier said there should not be sessions during the lunch break either because participants wanted the lunch breaks to connect and to socialize, and that -- i think that's also an important aspect. 
so what do we do with the main sessions? can we agree on -- 
and a lot of ideas came up during the very first discussion. we could do this -- have this, have that. also, the format is not cast in stone or cast in iron, but what is -- we have to make use of interpreters in the main room, because we said we want to provide at least one track which is in all u.n. languages, but that can be also something else. 
it has been mentioned maybe some more hands-on technical sessions explaining on how to deal with spam. that was repeated by various speakers, could be one of the options. 
there was also the talk about having a discussion on multistakeholder principles, as multistakeholder cooperation is so central to the igf, why not keeping that center stage. 
young people and the igf or some proposed kids -- internet for kids or internet and kids, that has been something that has been on the agenda, has been mentioned many a times, that we should do more or we should give center stage to young people. and last year i was in a workshop with some of -- kids, i think high school age, 16, 17, from the u.k., who were absolutely remarkable and, you know, we can also think about giving them center stage. 
i was pleased to see that we have a very young participant in the back of the room. i think estimated age, less than two, or what -- 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: so that's good to know there is -- 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: -- young people also present here in the planning phase. maybe we should listen -- 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: yes. and i'm sure there's -- 
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: and i'm sure he or she knows how to use an ipad and find their favorite videos. 
so the floor is open. what are the -- martin, yes, please. 
>>nominet: thank you, chair. martin boyle from nominet. 
for a long time, i've found it very difficult to identify what i expect to get out of the main and plenary sessions, and there have been various attempts at various stages to use the main sessions to give feedback from workshops, but, for example, last year i went to the security, openness, privacy open session, and the feedback from the workshops was very much a bolt-on right at the end -- right at the end of the session. and i think that might be that we end up losing an opportunity because when people do workshops, they go into their little silo in a small room and by the time they've produced the report, well, that particular internet governance forum has been and gone. 
so i wondered whether there was perhaps some way of reserving the plenary sessions towards the end of the meeting, on the last couple of days of the meeting, against the particular themes and using that to get feedback from all the relevant workshops, so that there is some central point of documenting and understanding what were the key issues that came up, and then that, of course, leaves you with the first two days worth of plenary sessions where i think it would be very useful to bring younger people center stage, to use some of the more general discussions which we want to try and get wider orientation for, perhaps on enhanced cooperation, perhaps on human rights implications of certain things, but, you know, that would be my suggestion that we try to make sure that the plenaries are well integrated into the work, and that there is a reason for people to turn up to those particular plenary sessions. thank you, chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, and on that note, there was also a strong sense that we need to work on integrating bringing in the national regional igfs' initiatives. i think that is also something we can work on. we had some more -- we have some interregional roundtables but they were not given center stage, and i think this is also something worth considering. 
chris disspain? 
>>chris disspain: thank you, mr. chair. 
just a couple of things. first of all, i agree with what you've just said and what martin's just said about the main sessions. 
my observations are, having been involved in these from the very beginning, are that the current way we do them is probably reaching the end of its life cycle. the concept of an hour and a half or three hours on a particular topic, you know, using the same headings we've used since the beginning and trying to find subjects underneath is -- isn't proving very effective, i don't think, for the main sessions, were particularly we will attended in baku, and in fact, i think we had this conversation last year when we said the main sessions weren't particularly we will attended wherever we were the year before. 
and i wonder whether the -- the feedback that we tend to get on the main sessions tends to come from the panelists who are there who -- who come back and say "yes, that all seemed to go very well" and that may well be so for them but i -- there's a lack of convincing feedback from the audience members who attend these main sessions as to their -- as to their worth, whereas there is a significant, in my view, amount of feedback on workshops that indicates that they have worth. 
so i'm very keen to hear what everyone else has to say about the main sessions so that we can move them on in a way that is helpful to the greater picture of the i went, and i certainly think tying them to regional and national igfs and the workshop reports is -- is something worth considering, and not being -- also not being fixed, in that we have to have x number of them. 
we have to have some, but we may not have to have as many as we currently do. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. car on lena is next, and we have many speakers. yes, carolina. yes. 
>> thank you. (saying name) lactld. i completely agree with the proposal much rethinking the igf's main sessions, whether we should have six as we had before, whether we should maintain the same topics for them, the subthemes reflected in the -- in the (indiscernible) programs, are then not taken up by the audience or the questions or the panelists are talking about something and then there are questions coming from the floor divorced from the presentations. maybe some further documentation about what has been the evolution of that main session in the past seven igfs for the newcomers and participants attending main sessions would be a possible solution, but in all, i agree with martin boyle's suggestions and chris disspain's comments that we really need to rethink whether we need six, when and where should we put them, and the extension of these main sessions as well, as part of the whole igf program. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. i have lots and lots of speakers. 
next was bertrand. then i have united states, olga, anriette, wendy, valid a, bill smith, china, and let's see how many we can take before lunch. and icc/basis, council of europe. 
>>bertrand de la chapelle: bertrand de la chapelle, internet jurisdiction project. 
each year we have a session called "emerging issues." the concept of this session has evolved. it was initially intended to be a sort of takeup of issues that had emerged during the igf. it rapidly evolved into trying to make a specific focus on emerging trends and some of those sessions were pretty good, actually. i remember one in vilnius in particular on cloud computing that was quite illustrative. 
however, i wonder whether it wouldn't be better to use such a session -- maybe shorter or longer, like one hour and a half instead three -- to deal with what has happened since the previous igf, like emerging issues in terms of what are the trends in governance issues. we deal in the internet and jurisdiction project with challenges related to jurisdiction and the impact on the cross-border internet, and we see trends involving and there are issues on security and others that would be documented, which is a way to bring the participants up to speed on a certain number ofsome developments much. 
the second thing is, sessions of three hours are clearly too long, and i would like to encourage, as i proposed earlier, to have threads, and to make sessions instead of putting the main sessions at the end, as was proposed, which is not possible given the time with three hours, having different threads -- maybe two, three, or four -- where initial sessions at the beginning of the week would launch the thread, the workshops dealing with that thread would be dealing with the different facets of the issue during the week, and then at the end of the -- of the week, having one, two, or three wrap-up sessions of one hour and a half to sort of launch the issue, broaden it, re-narrow it, so that the work is done in the course of the -- of the week. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. united states. 
>>united states: thank you, chair. liesyl prawns from the u.s. 
i completely agree with the notion that, as other people have said, of rethinking how to deal with the main sessions and utilize the plenary nature of them, as well as the integration of things that happen at the igf, but -- and maybe this is stating the obvious, based on what other comments that have been made, but i do think that one thing that was not helpful in the main sessions was report-outs from the workshops in a way that kind of hampered the conversation. 
and i can say that as one who did a report-out once, so i -- i realized there's some value for getting on the record from the workshops in a way in the main session, but unfortunately i think the reports and the way that they've been done just hampered the discussion and the dynamism that we really want to get, so i'm all for rethinking how to do that. thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i notice an emerging consensus that we are ready to rethink, which is, i think, a very positive move. 
olga is next. 
>>olga cavalli: thank you, chair. and welcome back, markus. it's so nice to have you here again as our chair. 
some comments about main sessions. 
there may be value in three-hour sessions if we can go deeper into the discussion. 
one hour and a half sometimes is too few to go into deeper dialogue. i think we should revisit -- revise the main themes. we should focus on things that have happened from the past year, the past igf, into the new one, as bertrand said, so we have to rethink the themes. and i also agree -- and i have said this many times -- this reporting from the workshops doesn't work at all. i mean, i think it's -- it doesn't show the content of the workshops and it's not helpful for the main session. 
i wanted to say something more but i cannot find my note. 
so i'll stop for the moment. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. a brief comment, if you will allow. 
i'm not sure -- i think the three-hour session is -- taxes the attention span of the same speakers, and i think also if you're on a panel for three hours, it's also for the panelists it can be actually quite tedious. but you can -- to pick up on your idea, you could also have two panels dealing with similar aspects or slightly different aspects of an overarching theme. unesco did that in some of the workshops, okay, the next panel comes in. there is in one workshop, i think, of 90 minutes they had three sets of panelists, which may be a little bit too much but, you know, you can also play with that, with the format. 
>>olga cavalli: chair, if you allow me one more comment that i was forgetting. 
i think in sharm el sheikh, we tried a different model of a main session. it was very much interactive, and i think that was nice. 
very few -- few panelists and very few speeches, short speeches and a lot of intersection with -- with the public, with the people there. 
that were -- once they were -- i don't know why we came back again to the model of the panel, but that's something that i would like to remember from what we did before. thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, but let's just pick up on what chris disspain said, that the current model, i think outlived its usefulness or "sell by" date, however you worded it but i think it was also a little bit my impression we've done it and it's more of the same thing. it's not that they're necessarily bad, but they -- to begin with, people with, people were all excited, it was new, but it sort of sank into routine and there was more of the same thing, and if you can make it more interactive or better, but a lot of energy was spent on the selection of panelists and making sure there's balance there, and then adding one more to be sure and that sort of led to a ritual that i think really has outlasted, i think, its usefulness. 
but anriette. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: thank you, markus. i i don't support what chris disspain has said and other speakers and comments from the u.s. as well. i think using the main session as a way of synthesizing outcomes much workshops as a work, i think it has outlived its value. i think what chris said, we don't have to have multiple main sessions. i do think that maybe one or two with good speakers can be interesting, and i want to really thank patrick ryan for his comments earlier because i think resources are extremely important and i think one area where we see this is in the lack of funding available to invite new, interesting, relevant speakers to the igf. and i think maybe one or two main sessions with good speakers would be very valuable. 
just to share an experience from baku, some -- apc as well as some other governments and organizations involved in the igf organized a round table in baku. we organized a human rights roundtable and its goal was for workshops that had dealt with human rights to come together and share the outcomes of their workshops. due to time constraints, we weren't able to -- or scheduling clashes -- to have all the rights-related workshops. we had probably at least seven. 
and it worked extremely well. and we gave the workshops time to present their input. we were able to discuss where there were overlaps and where there were gaps. so as a mechanism for achieving what we have been unable to achieve is zibet sizing workshops, i can really propose and recommend that format of the roundtable -- of the magic roundtable. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i think this picks up up on also what martin suggested more or less, yes, to have the workshops coming together and having an interactive discussion, not just reading records. i think we agree on that. 
wendy? 
>>wendy seltzer: thank you very much, chair, and to our hosts. i want to echo what was heard. and i think we should -- about rethinking our working mode because i think what we are revealing trying to do is to engineer serendipity. we are trying to figure out how to help people to meet the people they need to meet to learn the things they need to learn and we may not know what those are coming in. 
and so i would suggest fewer sessions that get a larger audience together in the same place that gives participants a shared base of knowledge a shared meeting point where they can find that perhaps that technical issue they didn't think was really interesting is critical to their work six months down the road and now they know whom to contact because they've seen interesting panelists. or equally important, they have seen interesting fellow participants in the audience. we say that a lot of what we do is bring together audience members and everyone is a participant. i think that getting the participants into the same room more frequently rather than spread out among 10 or 11 different rooms could help that. 
i also often find that the most important part of a conference is its hallway track, the unscheduled moments, the breaks and the moments of mingling. it is important to have the key sessions to get the right people to come, and it is equally important to leave them time to discuss what they've learned afterwards in unstructured modes. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. i like organizing serendipity. that sounds good. 
[ laughter ] 
i think there was agreement a long time ago that the mingling factor was important, and we should not fill every available slot with meetings. and so the -- i think to have a two-hour free slot or lunchtime slot for people to be able to interact, i think that's considered key. 
but then how many sessions, less sessions -- let me basically come to the discussion of workshops. i still have quite a number of speakers. china. (indiscernible), are you speaking? 
>> china: thank you, chair. (saying name). this is the first name for our intervention, our first experience. our condolence to mrs. chin. it is very sad news for us. she had put a lot of energy and efforts to the other meetings and also made great contributions for the igf process. 
and i think we should welcome you, mr. markus, to come back to the igf meeting as a the interim chairman. under your leadership, we have a very efficient and effective discussion. 
for the main session, the workshop, i agree with you that it is very good to rethink the main session and the workshop. under the current mechanism, i think the big issue or the big problem that the workshop and the main session, there is no direct connection between them because in this current arrangement, the main session is held in parallel with the plenary. and, first off, the workshop has no time or has no opportunity to report back to the plenary sessions and the plenary don't even have enough time to digest the outcomes from the workshop. so it is my suggestion that we should -- maybe we can give more time for the discussion of the workshop. 
so my suggestion that because we have two preparatory process -- time, one -- the first preparatory in february and the second in may, but traditionally, we use this preparatory process to just identify the main themes of the meeting. 
i think maybe we could use just one preparatory meeting to identify the main sessions because it is not very difficult. i think the (indiscernible) of this change is that after this meeting, the under-secretary-general of the u.n. will publish the (indiscernible) of the meeting, and it will need more time for the organizer of the workshop to prepare for their workshops. and with the second preparatory meeting, i think we can live for the workshop to organize the events. we can leave all the time and all the venues for the workshop organizers to have very fruitful discussions during the second preparatory process. 
and after the second preparatory meeting, they still have two months' time and they can prepare the written reports to the plenary meeting. and during the plenary meeting, maybe the plenary meeting can choose the workshop organizers as the panelists and have ample time and also the participants can have more time to read and digest or read their reports from the workshop. and i think, you know, it's very important for the participants to know what is happening or what is the outcomes or what is the discussions from the workshops. actually, they are not -- the traditional way of publishing the six main themes and the participants, you need to note what will be discussed during the annual meeting. so we give more time, more opportunity, more chance for the workshop to have a fruitful discussion and give more opportunity for them to present the outcomes to the planning meetings. and i think this would be more beneficial for the efficiency of the annual meetings. 
and i think for the overall themes and the meetings, i think the host country of indonesia has made a very good proposal on the basis of indonesia's proposal, we can in tomorrow's mag meeting determine the overall themes in this meeting. 
and the six main themes, i think, in practice saying the past meetings, we have followed the six main themes. these six main themes is the pillar of the igf. 
we can remain to use it also as this year's main themes. it will give more ample time, more fruitful discussion for the workshop to discuss at the preparatory meetings. 
and i think with this kind of arrangement, adjustment when you give more involvement of the multistakeholders. so previous -- because also -- (audio dropped out) -- but we should give more time, more chance for the multistakeholders to discuss, to reflect their views. so i think we can make this igf meeting more fruitful with more outcomes. thank you, mr. chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. before breaking for lunch, there are still many, many speakers who put up their flag, but they can speak after lunch. i would like to give the floor to a remote participant. i think it is mag member paul wilson. 
>> yes, we have paul wilson who is trying to participate remotely. 
>> paul wilson: good morning. can you hear me? good morning. can you hear me? hello. i am trying to speak. hello? 
>>chair kummer: paul. we have some audio. we cannot hear you, but we can read you. just carry on. 
>>paul wilson: i can see and hear you very well. okay. now i can see myself on the transcript so i guess i can be heard. 
>>chair kummer: now we can hear you. 
>>paul wilson: okay. thank you very much. and hello to everyone. my name is paul wilson. i'm a member of the mag. 
(audio interference). 
i'm really story not to be in paris but i had a clash here with meetings in singapore. very happy to have joined the unesco meetings yesterday (audio interference). very happy as well. so thanks to the u.n. staff for making it possible. congratulations, to you, too, markus, on your appointment. it is great news. 
i have been hearing some of the first session of the consultation about main themes and i have heard some but not all of the suggestions. it seemed there are a lot of good ideas. i may not have heard them all but some of them at least seem to be linked to the wsis+10 meetings which is great. we heard from bertrand about the importance of multistakeholderism principles and about enhanced cooperation. 
there have been a few other good -- a few good proposals that seem to be getting a little complicated. 
and i wanted to suggest considering something short and simple which is actually linked to the wsis+10 discussions as well in a pretty obvious way. and that would be to consider an encompassing main theme for the igf as simply this one: internet cooperation. i think now really is the time to talk about cooperation. i think internet cooperation is what we're all doing as a term which, i think, invokes internet governance but with the concept of cooperation obviously there as well. 
and i think the timing for that -- for adopting internet cooperation as a theme mighting quite good in terms of leading up to the wsis+10. if that's not something that flies in the case of this meeting, then i would like to suggest that -- or i would plan to maybe develop that idea in a workshop proposal and i might come back to it next year if it seems to be a possibility then. 
that's all i will say at the moment. i realize you are about to go for a break. it is dinner time for me, too. i will try to rejoin after that in a couple of of hours' time. thanks again for the opportunity. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, paul. and, indeed, i would suggest we break. i will quickly read out who i have on my speakers list, and if i miss out on something please shout. council of europe, unesco, european commission, icc/basis, (indiscernible), bill drake, paul rendek and (saying name) and matthew shears. adam? mexico, is it? 
hang on. we can always add. that is just basically reading out those that had up their hands. 
>> (speaker off microphone). 
>>chair kummer: okay, okay. may i also suggest if you have it up, keep it up. if it is like that, that means you are -- i have read out paul. yes. andrea. okay. we have a rich program waiting for us this afternoon. enjoy your lunch. we resume at 2:30 in this room, again, 11 and not 2. thank you very much. 
(lunch break.) 
>>chengetai masango: ladies and gentlemen, we will have an informal meeting of the regional and national igfs in this room now. so if you want to stay for the meeting, please stay. if you are not, could you please exit the room. thank you.. 
%%%jen{^ 
(lunch break). 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/deac0dca/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ias_pk at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 07:10:41 2013
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:10:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open
 Consultations
In-Reply-To: <90D68ADD-1B08-41EB-BB66-63A63C06FE35@hserus.net>
References: <CAJwbTiDNZUxfX6W+cO+P8ek4c-y+j7oOU7U=C+hTv2iOHZ_isw@mail.gmail.com> <CALrvCLCcY9eRKbShhtaYy5=zXTexJpzTu8059tboiPML3vPMtw@mail.gmail.com> <CALrvCLAT5QdenShF7t7Wherx+riEn1sfjEMnvxO7aj-hDD=sPA@mail.gmail.com> <1362050847.4271.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAMz5XN4CzPxD-eAX5Xgt4M0yeh5r=UtYyqQeD8e4wHooai2R9Q@mail.gmail.com> <90D68ADD-1B08-41EB-BB66-63A63C06FE35@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <1362053441.33048.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

Dear Suresh, 
 
Funding is an important factor of limitations, but that may be resolved through Funding by IGF. 
Yes, we can offer volunteers Contribution to support  IGF Secretariat, and to motivate in-person or remote participation from all other countries who are not attending IGF Meetings. We may encourage them for common dialogue and address their issues. At least our support may help them to increase their resource to perform all necessary coordination.
 
Regards
 
Imran Ahmed Shah
 

>________________________________
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
>To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> 
>Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> 
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 16:38
>Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2013 Open Consultations
>  
>Seconding Imran's suggestion - but funding will still be an issue for that individual so if one of the NGOs reading this is able to commit a person that would be great.
>
>--srs (iPad)
>
>On 28-Feb-2013, at 17:06, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Good suggestion Imran.
>> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/387af833/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Thu Feb 28 11:45:54 2013
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:45:54 +0100
Subject: [governance] Transcript of discussion at IGF Open Consultations
In-Reply-To: <512F4840.8010205@cis-india.org>
References: <512F4840.8010205@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <512F89C2.1010605@cis-india.org>

Pranesh Prakash [2013-02-28 13:06]:
> 
> Transcript from Pre-lunch discussions on Day 1 of the IGF Open
> Consultations.

The full transcript of Day 1 of the IGF Open Consultations.

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
-------------- next part --------------
. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. 
. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. 
Igf open consultations. 
28 february 2013. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***ladies and gentlemen, we're going to start in just a few minutes. There's a bit of confusion concerning room numbers. 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com*** 
>>chengetai masango: good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We're about to start. Can we please sit dow 
Ladies and gentlemen, can we sit down, please? 
Order. I'm going to start calling out names. 
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: patrik? 
Ladies and gentlemen, can we start the meeting? We are a bit late as it is.can we please be seated? Need a gavel. 
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the open consultations. 
Thank you very much. Before we open -- before we start the meeting, i would just like to remind you that we do have transcription and remote participation, so when you make an intervention, can you please make sure that your microphone is on and you say your name and the organization which you represent slowly and then you can go into your intervention. 
So before we start, i would like to hand over the floor to mr. Slav on check on, from undesa who would like to say a few words. 
>> thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for honoring madam chair (saying name) director of department of government and social affairs with desa with your meaningful tribute. The kind generosity of good friends like you has been a great help to all of us during this very difficult time. 
Our desa family, and i would like myself to offer our most sincere thanks for the messages and letters that you sent in the memory of madam chen. 
Thank you very much for your loving support and i would like to ask you a minute of silence in her memory. 
[ moment of silence ] >> okay. Let me continue. As you know, the internet governance forum is a multistakeholder forum for policy dialogue related to the internet governance issue, and it welcomes governments, international organizations, business representatives, the technical community, civil society organizations, and individuals to participate in this event. 
On behalf of the under-secretary-general of the united nations, mr. Wu, please allow me to start by welcoming you to all to the 2013 cycle of the open consultations and the mag meetings on the internet governance, and also thank you, unesco, for hosting this event. 
Two thousand- -- as desa is committed to improving the core ideas of the igf and its open, inclusive, and multistakeholder platform. 
2012 igf team in baku was determined by magazine as (indiscernible) and social development. It's truly reflected the increased role of the internet in the evolution of the various development components through the world. 
The capacity development opportunities the igf provides are truly remarkable. Let me take this time to thank the mag and mag members, which provide extensive leadership and the guidance to past and future forums. 
I would like to thank also our general (indiscernible) community, those contributions to the igf trust fund have enabled us to engage in capacity-building program such as the igf fellowship program. 
The funds also provide support for 11 mag members from developing countries who are attending this event as well. 
I invite everyone present here, either in person or remotely, to actively take part in the -- all discussions regarding the themes and substantive structure of the 2013 igf that is going to be supported and hosted by the government of government of indonesia. It's all of us to contribute to the sustainable development of the world we are living in. Let us also use this opportunity to discuss opportunities in implementation of the action plan of the. 
>>wsis: , wsis, and in the consultative process of the post 2015 development framework. Thank you very much. Okay. And now i would like to give the floor to the honorary chair of the mag meeting, the representative of the government of indonesia. 
>>indonesia: thank you. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. 
My name is (saying name) from indonesia. First of all, i would like to express a most welcome to all of you in paris for participating in this first internet governance forum open consultations and mag meeting, the preparation process of the eighth igf meeting 2013. As mentioned before, it's planned to be held in bali, indonesia this year. 
Also on behalf of the entire community, i would like to express our gratitude to the success of the republic of azerbaijan for hosting the seventh igf meeting in 2012 last year. 
Let me also take this opportunity to thank the united nations department of economic and social affairs, and igf secretariat (indiscernible) of this igf open consultation and mag meeting. 
It is, of course, a great honor for me to chair this meeting, together with the interim chair, mr. Markus kummer. 
Ladies and gentlemen, we have made some progress on promoting the development agenda in igf but we think more has to be done in order to make the internet play a very important role in promoting the human, economic, and social development as a (indiscernible) and safe global cyberspace. Therefore, given the fact that the internet is developing so fast -- most of the time faster than the development of the legal aspects and the community readiness -- then we need to act fast as well, to set up new strategies to ensure the positive development of cyberspace at a national, regional, and international level. 
The agenda of this meeting today is very important. It has to be our priority to shape a fair agenda for the next igf that will be attractive to all stakeholders and continue to ensure that the igf meeting is productive and meaningful by addressing the key challenges that face all interested stakeholders into this world. 
The expected outcome of all our effort should lead to a more productive internet world and at the same time minimizing all negative impacts. 
Excellencies, distinguished delegation, ladies and gentlemen, both the positive and negative of the internet have been discussed on many occasions, including the last three days of our wsis meeting. 
Last december, during the world conference of international communication, wcit of itu in dubai (indiscernible) can be seen, of course, in the (indiscernible) itu. Even the itu itself even set up a global security agenda, as well as promoting children protection globally. 
As we are discussing today, many aspects of the internet during wsis, our colleagues in u.n. Meeting in vienna, this is their (indiscernible) meeting, also discussing the way to protect the people, the it system. Basically all (indiscernible) including international cooperation for cyberlegislation and so on. 
Many aspects of the internet will also be discussed in many other meetings. In the next meeting in april, also the cross-border data privacy will be also one of the main (indiscernible) group of apick in indonesia. At the end of this year, wto will also discuss e-commerce aspects of the internet and there are still many other discussions in many other meetings. Regarding the internet development. Compleansdz, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, realizing that there are so many aspects in the internet, some of them are even (indiscernible) as well as very sensitive, i believe the next igf meeting, where hopefully all of these aspects will be discussed comprehensively. It is very important to the meeting that we can set up the agenda in shaping the global internet in the near future. 
For further discussion of the agenda, as well as the detailed program of the next igf, i hereby hand the discussion process to the interim chairman, mr. Kummer. Thank you very much. 
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: thank you, mr. Chairman. It is a great honor for me come co-chair this meeting with direct general (saying name), and i think this comes at an important juncture. As you rightly pointed out, we have seen at the world conference on international telecommunications in dubai that there were a number of concerns voiced by developing countries and the igf could indeed be a forum to address these concerns. 
The secretariat has prepared an agenda for this meeting, and i would like to recall the agenda and the purpose, desired main occupants. 
First and foremost, i think we are called upon to discuss what could be the theme for the meeting, and in the discussions leading up to this meeting there were two different approaches. Either we decide on the theme now or we wait a little bit and we do it in a more (indiscernible) fashion after workshop proposals have emerged so we can what is actually of interest to the community. 
So this is a decision we have to take how do we want to proceed with identifying the theme for the next igf meeting. 
Also, the selection of workshops is an issue that always comes up again, and the secretariat has said it would be nice to have clear and easily understood workshop selection criteria. 
Also, in the contributions, there are a lot of talks about the number of main sessions, how long they should be, and what format they should take, and then the overall number of workshops, again, their duration, and connection to the themes and connection to the main sessions. 
We have had contributions, they're all posted on the web site, and the secretariat has prepared this paper and i will ask chengetai to sum up the contributions we have received. 
Please, chengetai. 
>>chengetai masango: thank you very much, markus. I'll just give a brief summary of the paper. As we go along during the day, i will give a more detailed summary according to the topics that are going to be discussed so that we don't discuss everything now. 
[ audio interference, please mute ] 
>>chengetai masango: the secretariat called for contributions taking stock of the baku meeting and also looking forward to the 2013 igf meeting. 
We received a total of 15 written contributions and also we received some suggestions on the igf web site discussion board on the main themes and subthemes for igf 2013. 
All of these inputs can be found in their entirety on the igf web site. Some contributions focus on evaluating the baku meeting while others cons state trade on their recommendation for the 2013 meeting. 
Many expressed gratitude for the government of azerbaijan for the successful hosting of the seventh igf meeting. The seventh igf meeting was praised for continuing thigf's tradition of successfully bringing together an extensive range of leaders from the many communities interested in internet governance and providing a truly unique opportunity to have an open discussion on a wide range of issues. 
Contributions stress the need for improvement in 2013 in the following areas: main sessions. Participants should increase, are focus should be narrowed and panelists should be diversified. These are just the general comments. 
Workshops. The amount of workshops should be reconsidered. Workshop selection should be made more stringent, and workshop outcomes should be improved. 
For the other sessions, the other sessions should receive increased attention and emphasis. 
For participation, they need to improve participation from developing countries, women, youth, et cetera. 
Requirements. This requires an increase in outreach and participant funding options. 
Capacity-building activities during the igf meetings should be increased. 
And social media use should be increased. 
For local issues such as -- there were comments on the local issues such as internet connectivity, venue location, the layout, food and drink, and also coffee. It was stressed that it's important and should be made available. 
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: we have taken all of that into consideration planning the 2013 meeting. 
[ laughter ] >>chengetai masango: as i said, these are just the -- a short briefing and i'll discuss in more finer detail the requirements under the specific headers that markus will... 
>>chair kummer: okay. Thank you, chengetai, for this. 
Now, a question. 
How do we proceed? I wonder whether there are any sort of more general statements or do we dive right into the substance? In the past, there were quite a few more general statements so i would leave that opportunity open. 
At the outset, i would suggest not diving too much into the logistics. The logistics is very much something between the u.n. And the host country. The u.n. Has very clear criteria, but the u.n. Cannot impose the way how to do it to a host country as long as it is within reason. 
We have taken note of some of the comments. Clearly, i think there's a strong preference to have the venue of the meeting not too far away, but the u.n. Cannot impose that to a host country because many, many u.n. Conferences are held in that fashion, and that's -- as long as it is up to u.n. Standards, that has to be accepted. 
The same thing, internet, yes, we do understand it is important, but it is not easy, and big organizations like the igf, icann, have also found it not always that easy, but what they now usually do is they hire a specialized company -- this is not resource-neutral. This costs quite a lot of money. The secretariat can rely on advice from highly qualified engineers who have gained experience in advising host countries. You know, patrik faltstrom, many of you know him, he has a lot of experience in doing that, but things can happen. It's not -- cannot -- you can never guarantee that it works perfectly, but we are fully aware that this is an important issue. 
And, and, and, and i think the u.n. Always asks the organizer to make sure that there's quick and cheap food available, including coffee, but again, it is the host country that has to organize this. Free food is not a criteria. It's not required for the host country. Nobody will ask you to provide free food. But sometimes host countries are generous and do provide it. 
So to cut a long story short, i would suggest not diving into these logistics issues. We have taken note of your preferences and i'm sure the host country has also listened. 
Indonesia has a long experience in organizing international meetings, and i'm sure we're in safe hands. 
So who would like to take the floor? Yes, parminder. 
>>kanwaljeet singh: i'm parminder from a ngo ig for change and i thought i would take this -- which i wanted to make -- actually ask a question on. 
I would like to know what is the status of the report of the working group on improvements to the igf, because this report was presented quite a long time back and has now been confirmed by the u.n. General assembly and in my understanding, the chief actor or at least one of the chief actors to implement it is the mag, and whether there is a program to do that, whether there is a timetable or whether the consultation is going to be involved about how to go ahead about it. So i just wanted clarifications on that. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank 
>>chair kummer: thank you. The united nations general assembly has taken note of the report and now collectively we are supposed to take that into account when planning the next meeting and it is also on the agenda. Chengetai, would you like to comment? 
>>chengetai masango: yes. It has been approved the working group report is part of the input from this meeting. If you check on the web site, it is there. And it has been integrated into our agenda and it is taken the point given there as if there were general inputs from people coming in. So we are paying particular attention to the working group report. 
>>chair kummer: did you want to continue, parminder. I see the united states of america has asked for the floor. 
>>united states of america: thank you very much. Good morning. The united states would like to reiterate its full support for the internet governance forum and we believe the igf is the epitome of the process is that have make it an economic engine. I don't need to tell it to this audience. I felt it necessary. It provides the premiere opportunity for governments in to be civil society technical community to address internet issues in a broad, creative and collaborative manner. U.s. Would also like to congratulate azerbaijan, the igf secretariat, the multistakeholder advisory group and the stakeholder participants for a successful igf in 2012 that continue to build the impressive record for discussion and dialogue in the information society. We thank you indonesia for taking on that important task and hosting all the stakeholders in bali later this year. 
Our observation is that the discussion matures each year and the dialogue deepens, taking advantage of the opportunity of the annual igf as well as the national and regional igf for the discussion to be candid and timely. 
We also note with appreciation that contributions of governments, industry, technical communities, civil society, alike to the cstd working group woks to the igf. We support effort while preserving a multistakeholder model format on which it depends and the absence of negotiated outputs. We want to highlight the recommendses that can be implemented in the lead-up up to bali including improving the visibility of the igf and all stakeholder groups and around the globe. Strengthening the secretariat, including its funding, acknowledging the contributions of the host countries for their effort in the significant undertaking it is to host the igf as well as the stakeholders for their active participation and input and improving the participation in the igf and its preparatory process especially from developing countries. 
With everybody, we look forward to discussing themes and subthemes that will make for a dynamic and thought provoking forum in 2013. Cross-cutting issues are inevitable and we encourage the accommodation of those cross-cutting issues and questions and workshops. 
In her o with the unesco and the plus 10 meeting, the secretariat of state noticed wsis is a social issue, a human rights issue and, quote, it is an economic issue as an open, reliable and trusted internet sparks greater le rye built and greater efforts in innovation. 
So in that vein and for your consideration, we suggest addressing science and technology for development, s and t for d, if you will, and its contribution for economic growth perhaps as a cross-cutting or subtheme but we look forward to the discussion today and ongoing preparation for igf bali. 
Just on a personal note, of course, it is wonderful to be here again and to be here as a government representative this time. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Brazil. 
>>brazil: thank you, mr. Chair. I would like to take this opportunity as well to organize this meeting, for convening this meeting. I think it is very important to start good preparation for the bali meeting. I would like to reaffirm brazil's full support for the work of igf. We think igf can present a unique contribution to this process. We are engaged in the review of the wsis implementation. We think in that regard we have highlighted in reaction to a question that was put forward before, that in bali, we are already looking at implementing the recommendation that contain the working group on (indiscernible) report. We think it is very important that we start implementing at a very early stage and very glad to see the invitation is to take place in bali. 
We concur with science and technology development should be one of 15, so we would be very glad to look into and give more emphasis to this theme in the igf work. And last, but not least, again i'll like to just in this forum to inform delegates that brazil has put forward its ability to host in 2015. We are, of course, waiting for a final decision on this matter, but this is something that we would be very glad if we could again host the meeting in this very important year in which it would be a wrapup of the second phase of igf. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for your intervention. We look forward speaking for all participants to coming back to brazil in 2015. Icc/basis, you asked for the floor? No? 
Okay. Are there no more general statements? Then we can dive straight into the agenda and basically issue number 1 on the agenda, the secretariat has published to discuss the main themes and subthemes of the igf 2013. Science and technology for development has been mentioned as maybe a cross-cutting theme and that has the merit of linking the igf actually closer to the cstd. 
But before -- we have also in the synthesis paper various themes have been listed that have been proposed. But i think there is a binary decision we have to take before we go into the substance. Do we want to take a decision now or do we want to take it in light of the workshop proposals when we see in may what are the themes that are proposed from the community in a bottom-up fashion? There is a merit to both approaches. If we decide on a theme now, it would guide people who are thinking of proposing a workshop, going in one direction. If we wait, then we would, i think, act in a true democratic, bottom-up fashion and we would then decide on the theme in may in the light of all the workshop proposals. 
Comments on which approach to choose? Yes, martin? 
>> nominet: martin boyle from nominet. I, like you, have got very little preference between whether we set a theme now or whether we do it in the light of proposals. But i still think it would be particularly helpful to those who are developing proposals to have an idea of the direction travel of what it is seen as being at least general themes in which we could or should be developing. 
And, in particular, for me one of the things that has come out from in particular the wcit discussions before christmas is that we should be trying to put a bit more of a practical spin, a practical outcome, a practical thinking, conclusions that come out that can then contribute to help people make the decisions that they will then subsequently make. 
So if we choose later, i would still like to get down on to the record that we should be trying to get some practical support and activity and help for people who have to then make decisions. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. 
Icc/basis, ayesha hassan. 
>>icc-basis: thank you, ayesha hassan for icc/basis. I think it would be helpful for us to collect the ideas at this consultation and see what kinds of subthemes and main themes people are focused on for this year. 
I share nominet's input regarding a focus on practical outputs or take aways, et cetera. I think if we can collect some ideas here today, we may be in a position to shape an overarching theme which in some ways would be able to promote the igf in bali earlier given in past years the host country has benefited from having an overarching theme to start promotional materials on the web site, et cetera. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. And listening to both of you, i think -- oh, yes, norbert. 
>> civil society internet caucus: (saying name) talking about whether we should fix the theme now or later, this is not a question that we have had a chance to ponder really. One thing i would note though, there is a great value in having integrity in the sense of the theme that is obviously anounsed actually fitting what is going on at the igf meeting. I would -- trying to be not too politically incorrect -- still say that internet governance for sustainable development in the various aspects that were mentioned at the last igf theme is a wonderful theme. But what was actually accomplished at the igf did not actually match that wonderful theme. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Annriety. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: i was one of those who proposed the idea of developing the main theme afterwards. There are definitely different ways of doing it. Possibly this year it is too late. But the reason why that occurred to me as a more appropriate way of doing it was because we spent approximately 1 1/2 days at last year's mag meeting arguing about what the main theme should be because the issue becomes very split have politicized. So, in fact, what the mag then does is to spend time on trying to achieve consensus on what the main theme should be rather than really trying to understand and absorb and process what the igf community expresses as its priority. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Lee, please? 
>>council of europe: lee (saying name). Just one pragmatic idea about taking stock really. There is a lot of things that are being discussed now. I used the example of, for example, two weeks ago in vienna there was a meeting on internet 2013 on issues. There was a lot of events throughout the year which have a foreign policy dimension to them. The european dialogue has already started its planning process. We already have a draft outlined to be discussed so i think it is very important that we try to take stock of what's already been discussed. I would really appreciate some information collected together about what national igfs are thinking about if they had meetings and these sorts of things. 
>>chair kummer: izumi and then marilyn. 
>> izumi: a member of (saying name) and civil society. I would like to integrate the main theme in a substantial manner. However, given the time this year, it is slightly earlier than last year's one, we may need to conclude early. So what i would like to see is some kind of discussion today not spending too much time and taking some kind of temperature or the preferences of the defined stakeholders and maybe we try to come up online to narrow down to choose from, say, some of the major candidates kind of themes. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Marilyn. 
>>marilyn cade: thank you, my name is marilyn cade. I would like to support some of the comments i'm hearing about the importance of sort of generally taking stock of the options and the -- maybe the driving concepts that are coming out. I serve as the chief catalyst for the igf usa and certainly one of the things that has always been very helpful to us as an initiative has been being able to feed into and benefit from the igf. It would be extremely helpful, i think, to the national and regional igfs to have a general understanding of the direction of the theme and subthemes will go in. 
Of course, they reflect both national and regional perspectives and won't be completely dedicated to that. But i think it helps us to support the bottom-up input process as well. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. And i'm tempted to say the other way around would equally helpful, that those are here that organize national and regional meetings, what are issues of concerns to them. 
But i think listening to the various statements, it doesn't seem to be an either/or question. It is rather a hybrid that seems to be an emerging consensus, that we don't need to agree right now on what is the main theme but that we listen a bit and see which direction it could take and then we finalize that at the next meeting. 
Raul, please? 
>>raul echeberria: thank you, mr. Chair. In latin america, we usually organize regional preparatory igf meetings at the end of august or more or less sometime in then. Usually with meetings here in the room, there are a lot of of people involved in the organization of those meetings. 
But i think that's -- organizing the meetings in that part of the year, it is good for the regional purposes, but it is not enough good in order to influence the agenda and the main topics of the local igf. Probably we could encourage the people who organize these kind of meetings around the world to do that early in the year in order to produce recommendations that could be taken in consideration by the mag and the organizers and probably at the time of the may meeting every year. That's an idea that came to my mind now. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that suggestion. I think that's also in line what others have said, that we maybe ought to revisit the whole planning process maybe to make it more organic. 
Adam, yes, please. 
>> adam peake, glocom. I was wondering if we could hear the proposal that is have been coming in from the different stakeholders that have been staying on this issue. And then perhaps just take it to the mag tomorrow where they might give a very brief bit of thought to this responding to those proposals as they have been submitted and put it in the program paper as a general outline of what this is generally suggested and take it for a comment to come back in may and then the program paper would give some general direction to people and we wouldn't have to worry about wordsmithing which is annreitte's concern which is a hybrid approach listening to what people have said in consultation and then asking for more thought later. 
>>chair kummer: yes, i will ask chengetai to read out the proposals that have been made. I mean, what i heard today is also to have a more hands-on practical approach that was, i think, martin and aayesha. And i myself was struck that spam became an enormous issue and in the igf context, we dealt with spam back in athens in 2006 and it fell off the table. Obviously people that were in athens were not the people in dubai. And we may revisit an issue like spam which may not be the top concern of people assembled here in this room, that we have to take into account that there are people out there who consider this a major issue. 
Chengetai, please read out the proposals we received. 
>>chengetai masango: thank you, markus. 
Proposals for the main themes received were internet governance for openness, sharing and improving the lives of all humanity. Human rights and the implications for internet governance. Public interest principles for the internet. Shaping global principles for the internet. New service oriented approach in the world based on the internet of services and internet of things. The most popular proposals for possible subthemes included issues pertaining to human rights and principles, human rights, enhanced cooperation and internet for kids. The report of the working group on improvements to the igf recommended that a set of quality questions should guide the discussions and debates in the main sessions and throughout the annual igf meetings with a goal to then report the outcomes of such debates by stating clearly the convergent and divergent views and opinions on the guiding questions. 
Some contributors gave suggestions on possible policy questions that could be considered. How to maintain net neutrality as the key architectural principle of the global internet and what should be the mechanisms and executions involved in this process? 
What kind of general internet principles or principles for internet governance can frame relatively coordinated and harmonious policy responses to key global internet-related issues that impact global public interest. 
How to maintain the principles referring to -- referred to by some as net neutrality, that the price which an isp charges their customer for exchanging data packets via the internet shall not depend on the content of the data packets nor shall it depend on the party with whom the packets are exchanged. How shall (indiscernible) architectural principles for best service for all global traffic in the internet be preserved? That's the end of the principles. 
And then all proposals on main themes and subthemes are listed in the synthesis paper, so are the proposals for the main themes or subthemes -- oh, sorry. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. Some of it went already into the main session. I think right now we are still at the higher level of main themes. What i heard this morning i think in both the interventions of brazil and the u.s. Were science and technology also for development which i think is interesting in that it so far links the igf maybe closer to the work of the commission of science and technology for development and the economic growth, the internet as an engine for growth and innovation. This is also something that was mentioned. I think i sense there is a general agreement that it makes much sense to listen a bit which direction we could go without taking a final decision so that we have a sense of direction. 
Indonesia, please. 
>>indonesia: thank you, mr. Chairman. I'm (saying name) from indonesia on behalf of indonesia delegation. It is also a multistakeholder advisory group member and civil society. We proposed some keywords that may be could -- would be formulated in igf main theme such as development, internet (indiscernible), multistakeholder, cyber society and (indiscernible) cyberspace. We are also offering some of the main themes (indiscernible) that will be used in the next igf as follows: internet governance multistakeholders, two words, information society through participation. The reason behind this, the multistakeholder participation is the process of internet governance requires a brief of the review of the concept of governance itself. Governance can be understood as the formation and operation of the joint rule of the game which define the actors and their responsibilities in the collaboration to work toward common goals and in resolving any disputes that arise. 
Government arrangements are open, translated into a partnership between (indiscernible) and (indiscernible) actors. 
Secondly is internet governance is the (indiscernible) of the development goals. This issue of the mpg is to be the benchmark of all the countries involved in the internet governance forum. This issue is particularly (indiscernible) because in the near future, there will be an evaluation to see the achievement of (indiscernible) throughout the world. 
And the third theme is internet governance to achieve sustainable development through people participation. 
And the last -- the fourth theme is internet governance for sustainable development through (indiscernible) and secure cyberspace. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: yes, please. 
>> my name is mary anne frank lynn. I'm speaking on me boo half of the principle price coalition. While we talk about substantive themes, i would like to read a brief -- an abbreviated version of the statement we sent in because we believe strongly that this next igf needs to be talking about substantive outcomes. So if i may turn to my screen for a minute. 
We think this would be a very worthwhile approach to be focusing on what needs to be done rather than on who will do it and which -- so that gets us out of constant discussions over a day a half as anretta pointed out. We think it would be worthwhile on developing principles on internet governance as touchstones. Thee are general terms we are proposing that can guide global internet governance to help take away required public interest policies and other activities in this area. 
It will give us important leaves on what kind of constitutional framework best suit a global agreement on internet governance and we think -- and we hear, and we can see quite visibly this is the hot topic coming up to wsis in 2015. 
We also note in our statement that in vilnius 2010 this was made clear by the chair's report. We also noted in the statement that (indiscernible) has been leading the way with truly multistakeholder process by which principles can be moved forward into legal terms. And it is time for the igf to have the courage of its conviction and have a theme that can include principles as a touchstone that can allow also subthemes for people to explore these particular priorities and interests. 
So in that sense, i would just finish now to say that we propose as i have just said the overall theme of bali, the internet principles, possible overall themes being put forward public principles or shaping global principles for the internet because we know that titles are important. We would like to make that very clear now. Principles for the internet. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. You rightly pointed out there is a tradition in the igf to have this discussion. We have that in vilnius, also last year in baku, taking stock had a strong segment on principles. 
I see apc and norbert again, apc, please. 
>> apc: good morning, my name is (saying name) from apc. We just wanted to make a few contributions for this topic. A general point on the igf improvements, apc propose that is an implementation form is formed to promote the recommendations of the cstd working group on igf improvements. Such a group can be made up a combination of mag members and volunteers from the igf community. An ideal number would be around 10 people. 
We suggest there is flexibility in terms of main session themes. Some of the traditional themes are necessary such as emerging issues and taking stock. But other themes can change from year-to-year based on priorities that the igf addresses. In in slight, we propose that the igf in 2013 focuses on the following theme. We leave it to the mag to decide whether this should be dealt through main themes or roundtables but we do believe it would be useful to use the entire last day of the igf as synthesizing the discussion that took place at workshops. The following themes for the igf 2013 or topics, enhanced cooperation, support input from ball. The igf can complement the efforts of the cstd working group on enhanced cooperation. 
Number two, human rights. The apc proposes that human rights become one of the main themes for the igf. This seems to be a natural step forward considering the prominence of human rights at the igf, s 
>> it will facilitate a substantive continuation of the debate, particularly around diverse ways in which the technical and policy decisions surrounding internet governance contend with human rights. The mag and workshop organizers should include new human rights issues areas, such as anonymity and less talked about (indiscernible) lgbt rights. Approaching issues such as network neutrality, affordable access (indiscernible) and also part of the -- thirdly, internet governance principles. Apc supports a decision put forward by the internet rights and principles coalition that the igf should provide a space for establishing whether there is consensus on what principles should underpin public interest internet policy and policymaking processes. 
Many institutions are framing their principles, such as the council of europe and the oecd. At national level governments are establishing principles that can be used to frame national policymaking. 
With the naming of these principles are how they will be applied and how they relate to existing global agreements and standards is still not clear. We, therefore, support the proposal that igf 2013 addresses these topics in more depth than previous igfs have done and what public (indiscernible) principles for the internet or shaping global principles for internet governance be considered as main themes. 
Fourth, how to deal with spam animal wear. 
There's an area where capacity-building, and policy issues can be dealt with. 
And finally, to outcome or to not. 
[ laughter ] 
Apc believes it is a discussion that should be put to bed. When mag members debate whether the igf should produce outcomes or not, it is doing just that. Outcomes are emerging in multiple ways, in the form of follow-up events, better understanding of stakeholder groups' concerns, informal negotiations of (indiscernible) and upcoming policy processes, brainstorm solutions for difficult policy problems, suggestions for research and capacity-building programs, statements from presents and so o. 
These are negotiated agreements but they might eventually lead to such agreements. The more interesting question is how these outcomes should be captured and communicated. 
This is a task the mag must take seriously. 
These are not negotiated agreements but they might very well inform such agreements in the future. 
Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. What is the order? I think norbert is next and then we have martin from nominet, india, and brazil. 
Okay. Quite a number of speakers. Norbert, please. 
>> thank you. Again, norbert (saying name) for the civil society internet governance caucus, the intervention from the internet rights and principles coalition resonates very strongly with what we have in mind, as we have put forward not only a general theme as it was read, human rights and the implications for internet governance which we suggested at the main theme, but we also suggest some subthemes, which are: effective participation of all stakeholders in internet governance and internet rights and principles and internet for kids, which we suggest as overall subthemes. 
And i would like to note that there is a very strong tradition at the igf, especially in recent years of emphasizing human rights and it would be very valuable to take that forward in an even more outcome-oriented and implementation-oriented and moving it from the talking about it to actually getting it done stage, and i would very much appreciate if the program for the igf specifically encourages this kind of practical side to it to move the igf from being very much a talk and social event to something that has a very strong practical policy impact. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Before continuing the discussion, we were told by the interpreters to speak a little bit slower. Especially when reading something. And also, after speaking, not to forget to turn the microphone off. 
Now we have already moved in many ways forward from the subthemes into how to do it, but this is all relevant to the discussion. We have still quite a number of speakers. 
I think martin is next, then india, brazil, icc/basis, bertrand, andrea. Okay. Martin? 
>>martin boyle: thank you, chair, and we've heard a lot of issues being raised around the table, and i must admit i agree with the relevance and the importance of an awful lot of the subjects that have been raised. 
I thought it might be useful to -- as somebody suggested that we should take input from national and regional igfs to say something about some very preliminary thinking that we've done in the u.k. About -- about issues, and one of the things that interested me about that exercise was that we came up with quite a lot of consensus on just a few topics. 
The topics included cybersecurity, but very firmly put in the framework of human rights, and this came up in a lot of our discussions that human rights not being seen stand-alone, bolt-on, extra, or sitting in its own little group talking about human rights issues but to try and bring the understanding of human rights, of privacy, of freedom of expression into discussions on other topics, and doing that on cybersecurity was a very, very big and important area for doing this. 
And of course cybersecurity is a massively large subject. 
We also identified doing -- trying to do some convergence, trying to understand better the principles in which we work, was again seen as something that was worth doing, but again, i think that this is seen very much as providing a base, a starting point, for further deliberations on other issues, to give ourselves a better understanding of where we're going, and certainly if we look at practical outcomes, practical thinking, helping people make decisions, then starting off with principles is a very important thing to do. 
And then of course we had youth engagement and things like identity management and building trust. 
So i've run through those last ones very quickly. I'm sure they'll come up again in more detail. 
But where that then led me for thinking about where we should go as the -- an overarching theme, and i think somebody -- and i forget now who -- suggested that the overarching theme could well be the internet as an engine for growth, for me that seemed to be encapsulating an awful lot of discussion that we had had in the u.k. As being -- well, you know, that's where we would like to get to so long as we understand these other issues, these other themes that feed into doing that. 
I liked the idea that the u.s. Came up with for science and technology for development as a subtheme -- sorry, as the main theme, but i don't see that as being out of step with the internet as an engine for growth, and, so in fact, i wonder whether we could go for something like the internet as an engine for growth, and then a second line of science and technology for development, and whether that gives us a good framework in which to to build in a lot of the rather more detailed work that contributes to achieving that. Thank you, chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. 
India? (saying name), please. 
>>india: thank you, chair. This is (saying name) from the government of india. 
First of all, having taken the microphone, i just would like to extend our thanks and -- to the government of azerbaijan for hosting the seventh igf, and to congratulate the government of indonesia for being our next host. 
I would like to just touch upon a small point, and that is, i would like to express support for the idea from the government of the u.s. And brazil for science and technology for development, and then to slightly suggest a little change to say "science and technology in internet," to make it a little more focused, because that may help many people to join in. 
Secondly, the idea to bring in science and technology as the cross--cutting, overarching theme maybe a little early, and my minister has proposed a theme in the igf baku. There he has mentioned the theme of transforming the internet to econet, and i would like to repropose the same for consideration for this next igf. 
And then in the end, to suggest whether the two issues which are very important to india, too. The issue of science and technology in the internet, the issue of internet principles, and the issue of enhanced cooperation, whether they could be considered as main themes for the eighth igf. 
Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. B brazil?BRAZIL. 
[ audio interference, please mute ] 
>>brazil: thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Regarding the themes that are being suggested, brazil certainly agrees that the issue of international internet governance principles would be an interesting discussion to take place in the igf, as it has been one of the themes of the workshops that we have here in this -- in the meeting that ended yesterday and we think there is a great road that is open for the discussion of this issue and the igf is certainly a place where it could be discussed. 
We concur with the suggestion from our colleague from india, but i understand that her suggestion does not delete the word (indiscernible). 
[ audio interference, please mute ] >>brazil: (indiscernible) is a very important (indiscernible) for the debate that we want to -- to have.
There's another point that i would like to raise, not exactly a theme, but i concur with the colleagues that spoke before me on the -- on the value that the -- the discussions that we are having here today and tomorrow on defining the issues and the themes for the global igf, the value that these decisions will have for the national processes. The national igfs and the local -- the regional igfs that could benefit from this sort of (indiscernible) of issues that would be also a guide for the organization of these national and regional igfs as deemed appropriate. 
But we would like to raise the opposite point. I mean, i think the -- it would benefit if we also took a look and thought on spaces in the global igf where the regional and the maybe national igf, as considered appropriate, could sort of have a venue where to -- to -- to summarize and also to offer their perspectives that the process that they had regionally and nationally to the global igf. 
I think it's the case of many countries, and it certainly is the case in brazil, that we would like to have all the processes in a more organic manner. I mean, the national igfs, the regional igfs, and the global igfs, and then if we had this two-way approach, i mean, the local and regional benefitting from the things that are decided here, and on the other hand, having a space in the global igf to express their views and their conclusions and so on. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I think this is also an agenda item on how to create these better linkages for -- i mean, we have already touched on elements of overall organization, outcome, and so these are important elements but we definitely will revisit them, and i suggest maybe closing the list of speakers on the main theme issue. I still have a fairly long list on that, so -- but i mean, the mag can also revisit that, but i think there is an agreement that we don't need to decide on this now, and there are some strong statements coming out, principles i hear that -- by many speakers. Also the economic aspect, science and technology for development, that don't necessarily make up -- it's not the overall theme, but they are here and i think they will guide the direction. 
Human rights has also been mentioned, so -- and cybersecurity has been mentioned, and there is an overall, i think, also general thrust that we should think a little bit more about having hands-on sessions that provide practical guidance. Spam animal wear, for instance, was mentioned as best practices, and also document outcome, but this will take us further in the discussion and i would now go back to my list of speakers. 
>> thank you. 
>>chair kummer: (indiscernible) andrea from (indiscernible) u.s., Mary, finland, council of europe. Is there anybody else who would desperately like to add something? Yes, i can see canada and with that, can we close the list on -- u.s. Yes, yes, sorry, i have you down. I did not read you out. 
[ laughter ] >>chair kummer: and yes, paypal, bill smith, okay. And -- yes. Mathieu shares, yeah. Okay. 
All right. 
Icc/basis. 
>>icc/basis: thank you very much. We support the prior comments about perhaps framing the main theme in terms of the internet for development and growth, and we feel like this can be used as an umbrella-type concept to wrap in a lot of the discussion this morning. 
We really feel like the -- the igf has a unique ability to talk about the internet as a fundamental catalyst and engine for transforming economies and for transforming societies, and that can be a nice linkage of all the different things that we've heard today. 
One point that we wanted to emphasize is, sometimes the igf is always looking around the corner at the next issue, but we think it's extremely important when we look around at the broader landscape that the igf tackle the fundamental issues of investment, infrastructure, deployment, the practical issues of how countries and how societies are going to deploy the internet and get access to the internet in the first place. 
Secondly, to take on some of the issues around security and the practical issues of operating the internet and making it safe and secure. And third, dealing with the transform able impact as others have mentioned that the (indiscernible) science and technology can make on society. We think that can be wrapped into both economic growth, responsible social development, as well as the human rights issues that we heard today. 
The internet has a transformational effect on all fronts, and what we are urging is that there be a balanced approach to this igf that really incorporates the unique breadth that the igf has to offer in assessing a global view on both these fundamental aspects of deploying the internet, as well as dealing with the practical concerns with operating it, and then finally the -- the important social impacts that the internet has on society. 
And we look around at the landscape and think that the igf has to both assert its own space and -- and not let other organizations or processes fill that space, but it also has to look around and figure out how can we, as others have said, provide valuable inputs into others, and the unesco meeting this week was a great example of how there can be a great interrelationship between the igfs and other organizations. 
So i think the positive thinking we've heard this morning on all of these things can be very helpful in thinking about the main themes as we do our work this week. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. Robert guerra, please. 
>>robert guerra: this is robert guerra from the citizen lab at the university of toronto. 
Chair, thank you for giving me a few minutes. 
I'd like to just comment on some earlier points that you made. First of all, in regards to the igf being mentioned in other spaces such as the wcit, i think if there are other spaces where the igf has been mentioned as a space that key issues can be discussed, it would be interesting to make a list of those issues to make sure that everyone is aware of them, and so they can be on the agenda possibly to be discussed. 
I think in regards to whether setting the overall theme now or in may, i think as we're going forward now, identifying possible themes and then having a call i think would be good, but i think identifying some issues and getting feedback on that, i think, could be useful. 
I'd also like to echo something that hasn't been mentioned by some of the other commentators, and that is the -- the delegation from indonesia did make comments and they're the host country and the country from the region, and they have done a consultation and put forward ideas from consultation of different stakeholders, so i think we should give those considerable thought. 
And from the perspective of the citizen lab, i think the idea of science and technology for development is definitely one that we would support. And it might be worthwhile also to talk about cybernorms and the right approach to some of the issues as well. 
Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Bertrand de la chapelle. 
>>bertrand de la chapelle: bertrand de la chapelle from the internet and jurisdiction project. 
I've listened carefully to the different comments today. 
I would like to suggest that we take a moving picture, rather than just a still picture. 
The igf is now entering its -- approaching its eighth annual meeting, and if i look at how things have evolved in the discussion, the igf has produced a remarkable outcome that was very visible during this week here. I.e., Progress on sensitive topics. 
If i look at how the issue of enhanced cooperation and principles were discussed six years ago, it's very simple. Six or seven years ago, it was not even possible to put them on the agenda. 
Yesterday and the day before yesterday, there were two workshops on principles and two workshops on enhanced cooperation. Both of them have, in my view -- and i hope it's shared by other participants -- displayed a remarkable move forward in terms of the desire of the stakeholders to work together on those issues and to address those issues. 
I think, therefore, we should recognize, irrespective of the other discussion on main sessions, workshops, and so on, that there are two key threads that have emerged as an outcome of the discussions in the -- in the igf, and that those two threads are, at the higher level, the issue of principles -- and they are very strong messages both in nairobi and in baku, and i happened to have had the privilege of being either moderator or a panelist on both taking stock and way-forward sessions in nairobi and in baku, and the message already at that time was very strong towards this notion of a compendium and so on. 
So principles and how to deal with the proliferation -- positive proliferation -- of principles is one track. 
The other one being the evolution towards understanding enhanced cooperation or enhanced cooperations as a desire to identify concrete issues and make the different actors collaborate together to solve them. 
It is, therefore, an interesting second track. 
Operationally, i would suggest to use those two tracks to encourage the articulation with different workshops that are necessarily going to be proposed, and to have something that makes an introductory session at the beginning of the week, and have a closing session at the end of the week for each of those two tracks, so that the discussion can evolve during the week instead of having the usual problem that we encounter in terms of articulation between workshops and main sessions. 
So for instance, without getting into too much detail, the goal would be to have at the beginning of the week two maybe 1 1/2-hour sessions on each of those two threads and to allow people to organize their workshops during the week to feed into those two threads, so that at the end of the week, we can come back to two other sessions and see how progress has been made. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. And if you allow me to pick up on what you of said on the impact and outcome of the igf, i fully agree with you, the igf has not been very good at documenting the outcome and the impact. Particularly (indiscernible) impact. And i would add the use of the term "multistakeholder." 
There's no organization that respects itself that does not use the term "multistakeholder." That was clearly, i think, a notion that was pioneered by the igf. 
Next speaker, united states of america. 
>>united states: thank you, chair. I just wanted to make a point of clarification in the discussion of the main theme. 
First of all, i'm glad if the notion of cs -- s&t for d is resonating with folks. I'm glad for that. 
But i had put it forward as a cross-cutting theme or a subtheme, and in recognition that really the main theme needs to be as overarching -- more overarching, as possible, and possibly -- and so i just want to make that clarification and take that sort of maybe off the table for a main theme, but to incorporate it as people like. 
And with regard to a main theme, i think overarching is very key and not weighting one element of the discussion necessarily over others in the discussion of main themes. Something that can encompass all the ideas that people have been putting forward. 
Thank you, chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Point well taken, but it is on the table as a direction to go, but i also agree. I think when we formulate the main theme, it should be a little bit snappier. Science and technology for development sounds very u.n.-Ish. 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: but we need to have a theme that sounds attractive, i think, also to people who maybe don't normally go to u.n. Meetings. 
I think economic growth sounds maybe more attractive to policymakers, but it may be a little bit one-sided as it is not as overarching as the full societal and transformational -- i think jeff mentioned; i like that word -- -- the transformational impact of the internet. I'm not sure whether that's snappy enough, but i think we also have to think a little bit on how to attract people who might not necessarily have been to an igf before. 
Andrea, speaking (indiscernible) correct? 
>> thank you. Thank you, mr. Chair, and first, let me say it's really nice to congratulate you for your appointment. It's really nice to see you there. Actually, it makes me feel younger to see you back there. 
[ laughter ] >> i think when i was -- back four years ago, it's a familiar feeling and so i must give you (speaking in a non-english language.). To the point of the main theme and then to add a few points after. 
As a main theme from (indiscernible), we propose to evolve the main themes that have been suggested so far, particularly in the (indiscernible) diversity are proposing to have a main theme focusing on public access. We have seen that. It has been coming through different sessions and workshops in the past igfs. 
And we think it deserves its own space. It's important how you access the internet. It's important that the world has public access to internet (indiscernible) can lead to that, and (indiscernible), of course, is willing to work more into that's correct and there is also a dynamic coalition on public access, so that's one of our points we want to make for this mag. 
Just a few things briefly is regional events. We're really pleased to see that regional issues are mushrooming across countries and regions, and we are -- as (indiscernible), we are libraries from 160 countries. We actually are doing a great work involving them into participating in the regional event nah (indiscernible) to figure out where niece events are happening. I know it is not always so easy. And ways to involve local stakeholders into that. 
We are happy to give our support into that, to tackle into the (indiscernible) library's network. 
On the dynamic coalitions, as part of the dynamic coalition won access and dynamic coalition (indiscernible) outcomes of the igf, i think there should be also thinking on how to make them more active and how to reword them. Probably the wording is a function of the how to make them more active. 
One idea could be to get them on the mag and if they are active enough, we are proposing actually implementing stuff that have been discussed during the igf. That could be a good way to get them back into the whole igf process. 
And one last thing is about what i call (indiscernible) contribution to the -- to the discussion, the convergence. We -- before, we were speaking about the outcomes (indiscernible) igf. I think what just ended yesterday can be seen as an outcome of the igf. 
[ audio interference -- please mute ] 
-- that were made to a broad multistakeholder support yesterday was a final statement made from multistakeholder recommendations, and that's an outcome that i think the igf has to claim more of the influence it has even in the wsis forum. 
(indiscernible) even the name wsis forum came after the igf. At the beginning it was a long u.n.-Ish (indiscernible) implementation and follow-up that nobody would understand, and now even that you call it a forum. I mean, that's a good outcome. So in light of that, i think we should give more thoughts on the convergence, also the review processes. We're all going (indiscernible) 2015 the wsis mushroomed in several different, let's say, (indiscernible) and it's interesting to pull all of that back and see what we can learn from each other, and i think that the igf in this moment can teach a lot of -- of lessons learned to the other organizations. 
And last point, i was following the name meeting and i heard the multistakeholder word coming up in several occasions. I thought that was interesting because you would never expect that. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you so much. Thank ifla stands for international federation of library associations but i think it came across that you speak on behalf of libraries. I think the point is also well-taken that we have to project a little bit in view of 2015 what will happen after that and work towards that trajectory. I think that is an important mark. 2014 will not be the end. It will be an important meeting, but there will be a 2015 meeting and we will think what will happen after it. Will the igf continue? And if so, it will be a decision taken by the u.n. Members. The decision will not be taken in a multistakeholder mode. 
But we have to work -- if we want to, we have to work toward that decision. 
European commission. 
>>european commission: thank you, chair. And good morning to all. I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that were already made this morning. On the outcomes of the igf, yeah, we don't have negotiated agreement and we're not looking for them. But having no result, no conclusions means that we're going to lose a lot of what has been discussed. 
So as the chair said, the igf hasn't been exemplary in documenting its outcome. Let's make it exemplary because then we can use what we do to feed into the discussions of those who do take decisions. 
A short point on logistics, i think -- there were a lot of comments on logistics. And there are comments on logistics in the report by the group on improving the igf. I think it is not just about comfort of the participants; it has to do with issues of connectivity which means remote participation. 
It has to do with facilitating travel also for those who are on a smaller budget to the igf. So i think it's important to take at least some recommendations on logistics very seriously. 
On the themes, again, i would like to echo the chair. I think one of the main words is to take it forward. Whatever we choose as themes, we need to make sure there is an evolution from the previous igfs. Already in the last igf, many workshops tended to repeat themes, repeat discussions. We need to make sure that in the final selection we have some kind of intellectual evolution from what was discussed before. And the fact that something has been discussed before like spam doesn't mean we should cut it out. Just one word on spam, it's not obviously a major issue for some countries. It is definitely not a major issue for countries of the european union. But it is very big for some developing countries. It made its way into an international treaty. That means there are a lot of concerns around it. Let's not ignore something like that. 
One last thing, i'd like to echo brazil on the point about regional igfs. I know we're going to discuss this later, but, indeed, it would be great if we could have a venue at the igf where regional igfs could give something to the general igfs and maybe discuss amongst each other. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Just a brief comment. I don't think we should not take the logistics seriously. We know they are problems and challenges. And i think collectively, we are taking this very seriously. 
Mary, next on my list, please. 
>> thank you. This is mary (saying name) from ministry of affairs for finland. I listen for the discussion here and some of the keywords that have risen from interventions, development and human rights. Human rights as a cross-cutting issue has risen from our national multistakeholder process and will be one of the themes of our finnish internet forum next time. 
And many have reminded us on the very interesting discussions that we have had here in paris with enhanced cooperation and of the working group on enhanced cooperation which will be in the middle of its deliberations as we meet in bali. 
And, therefore, i would like to make one suggestion for a theme which would be enhancing multistakeholder cooperation for growth development and human rights through the internet. 
I think growth is also important as we meet in the times of economic crisis. And it's also intertwined in the questions of spam and all the challenges we have. How do we combat those for more growth also through the internet? 
So this is my suggestion. Maybe we could play with words to make it more catchy. But these are definitely the keywords that came up of this discussion. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much for this. And i point out, growth can also be social growth. It does not necessarily need to be economic. So this is something on the table we're considering. 
Do we have a remote participant? Why don't we give remote participant precedent as we always say how important it is to bring them in. Luka, please. 
>> so, okay, luka (saying name), remote moderator. We have two suggestions from remote participants. First one is a theme suggestion from veronica cretu. And she is suggesting internet as an enabler for social accountability and engagement for improved results. And there is a comment from deirdre williams, and she is says there is a need for much proved publicity and dissemination of the igf ideas to people outside of the "igf insiders." 
>>chair kummer: thank you. 
Next, council of europe? 
>>council of europe: thank you, mr. Chair. Lee hibbard, council of europe. (indiscernible) i'm the internet governance coordinator in the council of europe. Part of my job is to take stock of what goes into the igf and what comes out of the igf and to brief my colleagues and to keep them abreast, also member-states for that matter. And for taking stock is quite important (audio interference). If we look at baku, for example, i did some counting. I count the events which concern us and i think i counted more human rights-related events in baku than ever before which i think is quite revealing. That's the point i want to make. It is revealing to see what is happening. Why is that? Why is that? Why are more people calling for more discussions on human rights? And are they concerned that the internet is moving away from their concerns and the internet being a people-centered environment? Is it trying to take stock of the why? Are we asking that question enough? Why increasingly do they have a human rights dimension to these meetings? Are there underlying questions of traditions, values, cultures, even national sovereignty for that matter? 
That brought me to thinking about the why of the eurodig which is taking place in lisbon on 20-21 june and the overarching theme is -- and this is just a thought, internet for society, how to serve the public interest?, For example. Just to add to that more food for thought, what the council of europe does and is doing for the next few years, thinking about questions such as what is internet freedom, is it more of freedom of information and access to information as we know it? What does it mean to say "do no harm to the internet"? What measure should states and factors commit to, to ensure that there is no harm? And what frameworks of commitments and understanding do stakeholders need to commit and engage and exchange? 
And one final point goes back to the question of internet rights and principles and the work of a compendium of rights for internet users, do users know how to effectively exercise their human rights online? Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Canada? 
>> canada: thank you, mr. Co-chair. There have been a number of interesting ideas raised this morning and certainly found the discussion very interesting. I just wanted to support the number of interventions that have raised the importance of addressing practical issues such as cybersecurity, spam and malware. I'm thinking in particular of the comments from nominet but also their written submission and some of the ideas they have formulated. 
I think this is very appropriate for the igf to do. I take on board the comment that not all igf members and not all governments in particular put issues like spam at the top of their agenda but as our colleague from the european commission was just pointing out, for some governments, it is a very serious issue and has a lot of effects, even economic effects. And i think there is vast experience in this -- in this forum, the igf. 
When we were at wcit and some of these issues were raised, a number of us made the observation that a forum like wcit is not the right place to be discussing them which raises the entirely legitimate question if not a place like wcit, then where? And i think igf is an answer to that question. Thank you. 
(audio buffering.) 
>> suggested by nominet for a subtheme on cybersecurity and human rights. You can't consider one without consideration of the other. I would like to talk about a couple of things. I think the igf is incredibly modest. A number of people today have referred to the importance of understanding the accomplishments of the igf. And i think there is something we need to take seriously. When you think about the regional igfs that have sprouted up, the national igfs, the variety and diversity of programs that are in place around the globe because of the igf and we have no idea really what the national impact has been of the igf because we are not doing an accounting of that impact. 
So i would like to see the igf actually put in place process, maybe it is a session, maybe it is an activity, to account for the accomplishments of the igf and the kind of impact it has had around the globe. 
I'd also like to suggest that we really think about the term "multistakeholder." I would like to see the igf have a session or an opportunity for us to talk about multistakeholder best practices, including something very practical. 
How do you implement effective multistakeholder processes? And as the igf is a flag waver for multistakeholders, it is a perfect place to hold it. 
The last thing i would like to say is in terms of outcomes or outputs, i think that it's important that the igf look at how its outcomes or outputs are structured. At the moment -- and coming back to this after a couple of years being away, they are not hugely helpful. They were not hugely valuable in terms of what can you actually do with them and now we are not talking about recommendations or agreements or this or that. We're just talking about outputs and making them significantly more valuable and usable to policymakers or stakeholders or whoever when they go back to their countries and they say: okay, we have a solution, a proposed solution, or a variety of solutions for a particular problem. I would like to see us getting back to a real review of best practices a real look at how we can make what we do far more practical and usable. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: i think there is a broad sense of agreement on that, that the outcomes can and should be better documented. The question is basically how. And this is also not resource neutral. Either you hire an excellent consultant and there are people who can do it, or you do it collectively, the mag works harder on that. 
But, again, the mag, these are -- it is all voluntary work and it can be hard work. But this is definitely something we have to think about. And i still have speakers, and right at the end of the room, bill, you asked for the floor. Please, you have the floor. 
>> thank you very much, mr. Chair. Actually quite a pleasure for me to be here today and to see markus up there with chengetai. Brings back excellent memories. 
I guess i would like to suggest a major theme for the event and listening to everything, and that would be an engine for growth and advancement, the internet, an engine for growth and advancement. 
Markus, you mentioned that growth is not only economic. It can be societal. And i think by recognizing that, we can -- it encompasses quite a breadth of topics that we could -- that we could include, for example, science and technology, human rights and freedom of expression. We could include business models, business models that have come up as a result of the internet that may not be well-known all around the world. Access and diversity, where i would throw in things potentially like exchange points, local content, local hosting. 
And i also suggest that we need -- and i've heard calls here for this -- to have higher-level sessions. I think in my mind, that would be perhaps a smaller number of them, especially the lengthy plenary sessions that we've been subjected to in recent years. 
Practical sessions i've heard a call for, where this might be sort of the traditional workshop, 90 minutes. And i think we could have some very good working sessions as well where they would be during the week, perhaps a half day of intense discussion on topics, for example, spam. It is definitely an issue. However, there are methods to approach it, to mitigate it. They exist. And they are evolving. 
And having been at the wcit and listened to the issues that i recognize are real, i have to respectfully disagree with those who believe that a treaty-level instrument is going to have a practical, positive impact on spam. The way we deal with spam and things like that is at the lowest possible levels on the ground and taking very strong measures and working cooperatively. 
So it is good that we are talking about these things, but just writing it in a treaty is not going to solve the problem that countries have. Talking about it in a practical working session at the igf would be helpful. 
Finally, with respect to comments made by matthew shares, i would be happy to co-submit a proposal on multistakeholder models and practices and to run such a group at the igf. I think that's a fabulous idea because all, too, often we hear the term bandied about but in reality when we get into perhaps what is declared as a multistakeholder meeting, we find out, in fact, it is something quite different. 
So i think that would be a very good thing a very appropriate thing for the igf to do. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. And i think it would tie up with the comments that the igf has not been particularly good at documenting its success, and that would be basically claiming ownership of the term "multistakeholder" and defining it and setting a yardstick. I think that would definitely, to me at least, make sense. 
Raul? 
>>raul echeberria: thank you, mr. Chair. This week on monday (indiscernible) say that the information society should be seen from the perspective of human rights and i very much agree with this approach. So i would like to show my voice to those that are proposing human rights as one of the most prominent overarching issues, topics for igf. 
And i think it shouldn't be only for this year's meeting because this is an issue that should remain for every igf meeting for the next few years because human rights will remain unfortunately an issue around the world for many years. 
I like very much the way the finnsh representative combined the development and cooperation and human rights. It could be nice if we could combine those ideas, those values in the main theme of the igf in indonesia. 
Regarding other topics to be discussed, i think cybersecurity, cybercrime are definitely important topics and i differentiate the two topics because many times we speak about cybercrime, cybersecurity if they are the same thing. And they are different things. Both of them are very important, but we have to deal with them in a different manner. So i think those issues should be prioritized because those are areas in which i think we have the challenge to demonstrate that the multistakeholder model is able to provide some progress and some solutions for dealing with those really big problems that we have today. 
We have, of course, identified some specific points because i echo those that have said that we have to focus in practical issues and concrete things and not to discuss just those themes in a very general way. 
So i think my last comment is regarding the outcomes. I think that we have a broad agreement that we are ready to move one step forward and try to produce better outcomes from igf. And as you say, mr. Chair, the challenge now is to deal with the implementation of that. But i think if we agree this is where we have to focus how to implement that so the works are written down. 
This week we had a very good experience here at unesco as a way of dealing with this issue probably. It could be a basis for discussion in the mag meeting. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that, both for the substantive comments and the procedural aspect indeed. This was also a question in our minds. Can we learn from the unesco's way of proceeding? The also more focused, ask workshop organizers to be focused on outcomes. And security, security has been with us right from the beginning. But maybe we also have to rethink a little bit how to deal with it because it is also an issue of major concern for governments. And i think as martin said, the multistakeholder framework can -- and others, can maybe provide better answers. But we may have to rethink on how to frame it. 
Anriette, you also asked for the floor.anriette, you asked for the floor. 
>> going back to the multistakeholder term, well, we are talking about -- 
>>chair kummer: for the scribes, it is not anriette esterhuysen. 
>> ana neves from portugal. 
>>chair kummer: i was not speaking clearly enough. So my fault. 
>> ana neves: now it is clear. Good. My point is about the term multistakeholder and multistakeholder principles because we are discussing sometimes the more internet governance, the principles are not so much multistakeholder principles. It was already said today here what multistakeholder means and its importance and organization that doesn't respect itself -- well, nowadays it has to say it is multistakeholder. 
But what is multistakeholder? What does that mean? And so my main point is that besides the internet governance principles, we have to see and discuss what are the principles of the multistakeholders. And i think that when we discuss these principles of the multistakeholders, we start to see that we have multi-governments, multi-civil societies, multi-private sector and multi-technical communities. And it is interesting and it is rich to now we are at the level to better understand where we are. 
And so if we understand where we are, it's better to understand why it's so difficult then to implement any action because it is not governments that are going to implement anything because we have multi-governments, governments, they are all different. 
Besides that, i must say i like a lot the title that representative from finland put forward for the igf to play with, with the words "enhance" and "enhance multistakeholderism." 
I think it would enrich the title to include something related to empowerment, capacity enhancement or building. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I basically have closed the list. But in the spirit of inclusiveness, let's also listen to remote participants. And i think our colleague from russia whose name i can't remember also asked for the floor. Remote participant first. And there is one more. Russia also, okay. 
>> thank you, markus. We have two comments from remote participants. The first is a suggestion from the theme of the next igf from (saying name) from the internet governance caucus. And she is suggesting economies, communities, challenges and nations and opportunities. 
And then we have a suggestion from victor from cameroon that is suggesting to have a small guide on multistakeholder igf best practices and he is saying that having national and regional igfs is a way to implementing multistakeholder igf process and to share multistakeholder ig best practices. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Please recall your name. My apologies that i can't remember it. 
>> andrea (saying name). Higher school of economics at the university. First, i would like to thank the government of azerbaijan for the successful 7th annual meeting of the igf which was very successful for our delegation as well. And then i would like to say that i totally agree with absolute majority of delegations which propose human rights on the internet as one of the major topics of discussion. 
One note which i could simply make on this that the human rights is a complex issue which needs a complex approach to it. And so that's why i agree that we need the specific combined topic which allows common approaches for internet governance with the convergence of institutions and convergence of approaches. 
For example, we understood through the legal sociological, technological approaches, all of these issues, i think, are important to serv 
>>chair kummer: thank you. And please, can you introduce yourself? 
>> thank you very much, chair. My name is michael (saying name) name. I'm also from the (saying name). 
I would like, first of all, to say that it's a pleasure for me being here, and on behalf of (saying name), i would like to focus on business aspects. 
It was already raised by -- by the ui, i think, that today (indiscernible) the service sector has become the biggest and fast growing business sector in the world, which also (indiscernible) quality of life of people all around the world, and our economy is service-oriented, and actually we have internet which makes businesses going globally, right? 
And which makes services being global. 
That's why we also propose (indiscernible) contribution on service-oriented approach based on (indiscernible) of services and (indiscernible) of things because when we are talking about service-oriented approach of the global economy and global services change relationships between the people and companies. With the use of internet, and when we're talking about internet governance, we should also consider that it influences business which is based on the internet. 
That's why there are several possible subtopics, probably, about new business models of the internet, new models of the internet, possibilities for personalization of services including people with disabilities, and also security issues. 
So among such important topics like human rights, the internet, technological issues, i think probably it is necessary also to include business issues when we're talking about internet governance. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I see there are more flags coming up. I wanted to close this, but can we really close the list now? 
I see (indiscernible) and is that you, patrik? Okay. (indiscernible) and then patrik. 
>> thank you, chair. I would like to offer a suggestion of theme with a view of trying to -- to covering the different subissues we've discussed this morning, which could be cooperation for growth, development, and human rights, best practices for sustainable knowledge societies. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Patrick? 
>> thank you. Good morning, my name is patrick ryan. I'm with google. And although the topics and themes of the igf are extremely important, my intervention now is focused on the funding of the igf. It's a topic that's rarely, if ever, addressed at the open consultations and i realize we're talking about other things, but i hope you'll permit me to make my intervention now, so that we can talk about this maybe a little bit over lunch and at break. 
Let's face it, money is really hard to talk about, and so it's completely avoided in many cases, or taboo. 
It's crucial, if not existential topic here, and so i want to be sure to bring it up. And to put some light on it today. 
The igf operates on a shoestring budget. It's astonishing the amount of work that chengetai accomplishes, with part-time colleagues and several volunteers. 
In order to do it to do many of the things that the participants want, such as increasing outreach and collaboration with the developing world, providing a revamped web site, tracking information and reporting on successes, the igf needs our financial support. 
The funding for the igf is itself a multistakeholder endeavor. Contributions are voluntary, and they come from member states, the private sector, and civil society. 
Although we don't yet have an overall view of the total budgetary needs for the igf, our colleagues at un did he say a and at the igf secretariat on are working on that and have promised to share that information with us very shortly. This willer very important as we set fundraising activities for 2013. Last year the igf raised almost $900,000 from a total of 15 contributors. About nine contributors are from the private sector and ngos, and six are from governmental entities. 
In this regard, i want to call out special recognition for the government of finland, which has contributed nearly 25% of the annual budget on its own. 
Just a few more numbers. 
In a typical year, the igf is attended by around 2,000 people from more than 130 countries. Most all of the governments around the world praise the value of the igf. We talk about it in other context at itu as the alternative, but with only six governments contributing to the igf, there is lots of opportunity. 
There is no reason why half of the countries of the 130 countries that attend it, shouldn't contribute in some way. Those numbers don't need to be high on an individual basis, but some contribution is important. 
I realize that government budgets are tight, but i respectfully call on governments to find a way to contribute to this effort. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to turn the number of government contributions from nine to 90 this year. 
Similarly, the private sector needs to step up. 
Businesses like google believe in the values of the igf, but our business models also depend on the success of the internet. It can sometimes be a challenge to have private sector contributions from any single company or any single government to be too large because of the perceptions that can flow from that. We don't want the igf to be perceived to have been bought by any single company or government. 
At the same time, the number of private sector contributors should greatly increase, and i see no reason why the overall number of private sector contributors should not nine from nine to 90 as well. Ladies and gentlemen, if we can accomplish this simple fundraising task, the opportunities for the igf will be far greater than we are now. As we enter the eighth year, it's time to put our money where our mouth is, to walk the talk, and to show that we support the multistakeholder environment and that we mean it. 
I want to draw your attention to the funding tab on the igf web site, which thanks to chengetai and the work of undesa provides a lot more information on how to fund. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, patrick. While this was completely off topic, i think it was nevertheless very helpful. 
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: this is also, i think, a lot of the recommendations of the working group on igf improvements are extremely helpful, but -- and not always resource-neutral. Yes, of course it would be nice to do this and to do that, but the secretariat, which is comprised by one single person, there are limits to what this guy can do, and this is something we need to bear in mind. 
So i would also suggest when approaching the report that we make maybe proposals that are resource-neutral but there are others that need more resources, that we make the distinction and look at those that can be implemented without additional resources as a kind of low-hanging fruit. 
I mean, they -- "okay, that can be done," but some others cannot be done unless we have more resources. But resources can also be given through in-kind contributions. There may also be volunteers that come up to take on the task. 
There is another call for the floor. Nurani, yes. 
>> knew, mr. Chairman. My name is in your rami. I work for net noticed. Internet infrastructure organization in sweden. 
It's great to be here today and it's great to see you up there again, markus, and i think there have been some very good discussions today. 
I'm going to -- i'm going to keep it very brief, since i know that we are -- we want to move forward. 
I think there have been a few very good ideas being tossed around today, and i think i'd like to associate myself with the speaker previously, who pointed out that it's important that the internet -- that the igf continues to evolve, and i think we need to show that in the program and we need to show that through the main themes that we have. 
The themes might just seem like a banner or a tag line, but it really sets the agenda for the whole igf, so we shouldn't underestimate the -- the importance of that. 
By showing also that the igf continues to evolve, i think we show that by taking on new themes, that maybe the igf wasn't mature enough for before, so i think a few people have mentioned the human rights aspects and i think the internet is an enabler for human rights. It's a very important and current topic that i think the igf should pick up on. 
I also really like (saying name) thoughts from the finnish delegation about playing with the words of "enhanced" and "enhanced multistakeholderism." 
I think that's something that would be good to pick up on. 
And then just a final comment, not necessarily on the main themes, but i was listening in to the -- the workshop yesterday on enhanced cooperation, and the point there was made about how the igf is very inclusive and -- but -- but we also need to be aware of the different stakeholder groups that have different ways of interacting with the igf. 
So if we want it to be more inclusive, we need to take that into consideration, so for example, by -- by -- if we want more participation from certain governments, we might need to do more to reach out to them. We might need to -- to do -- to specifically invite them and even to organize pre-events, for example, at the igf that motivates them to come and participate. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. 
And really last speaker on this segment, qazi al-shatti, p please. 
>>qusai al-shatti: thank you, mr. Chair, and welcome to the internet governance hall again. 
First of all, i would like to (indiscernible) azerbaijan agreement for their hospitality in organizing this event, igf meeting, and (indiscernible) their beautiful country of azerbaijan, so i would like to thank them for that. 
I would like to echo the comments that the igf needs to evolve and the evolvement of the igf should be a revising the topics and the themes that -- to be discussed. 
I would like -- we'd like to have more focus on having a more open, inclusive internet, which we feel that it is still a current and important issue, as well as promoting a multistakeholder model for internet governance on what -- at global and regional levels. Thank you, mr. Chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. Okay. Now looking at the timetable, i realize that we're well behind what chengetai has proposed. He said he should move on, i think, some time ago, but i think it was a very good discussion and we touched on many not just aspects of the main themes, but the -- also touched on organizational aspects and on how to improve on the functioning. 
So basically the next half hour, we can start discussions on the organizational aspects and on the main sessions. 
I think we have already touched on that, and i think the strong notion here in the room is is that the igf is evolving, so maybe also that you need to revisit a little bit the concept of the main sessions. 
There are certain parameters that are given. The three-hour main session is given -- is dictated by the contracts with the interpreters. That doesn't mean that we cannot break it into segments but we cannot have, for instance, two 2 hour sessions because that's not how the interpreters work. They work in 3-hour segments. 
So that we have to accept. 
But i think there was a strong notion in the written contributions that three hours is too long to have one subject, one panel; that at least we should think in breaking it up in two. And also, i think what i heard from the discussions, that maybe we need new subject matters, like (indiscernible) written contribution maybe more focused sessions. 
We discussed that years ago, but i think in the end the mag was always moved back into the comfort zone of having the same titles. They have evolved slightly. You know, what we had first was security but -- we dealt with security and openness separately so that moved into security, openness and privacy, so there was an evolution, but my feeling was at least the past two sessions -- past two igf meetings were more the opportunity to walk around, that the energy was much more in the workshops than in the main sessions. 
Some contributions said we should not have workshops in parallel with the main sessions, which is, i think, almost impossible to organize unless we want to have workshops very early or very late or during the lunch break, but we earlier said there should not be sessions during the lunch break either because participants wanted the lunch breaks to connect and to socialize, and that -- i think that's also an important aspect. 
So what do we do with the main sessions? Can we agree on -- 
And a lot of ideas came up during the very first discussion. We could do this -- have this, have that. Also, the format is not cast in stone or cast in iron, but what is -- we have to make use of interpreters in the main room, because we said we want to provide at least one track which is in all u.n. Languages, but that can be also something else. 
It has been mentioned maybe some more hands-on technical sessions explaining on how to deal with spam. That was repeated by various speakers, could be one of the options. 
There was also the talk about having a discussion on multistakeholder principles, as multistakeholder cooperation is so central to the igf, why not keeping that center stage. 
Young people and the igf or some proposed kids -- internet for kids or internet and kids, that has been something that has been on the agenda, has been mentioned many a times, that we should do more or we should give center stage to young people. And last year i was in a workshop with some of -- kids, i think high school age, 16, 17, from the u.k., Who were absolutely remarkable and, you know, we can also think about giving them center stage. 
I was pleased to see that we have a very young participant in the back of the room. I think estimated age, less than two, or what -- 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: so that's good to know there is -- 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: -- young people also present here in the planning phase. Maybe we should listen -- 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: yes. And i'm sure there's -- 
[ applause ] >>chair kummer: and i'm sure he or she knows how to use an ipad and find their favorite videos. 
So the floor is open. What are the -- martin, yes, please. 
>>nominet: thank you, chair. Martin boyle from nominet. 
For a long time, i've found it very difficult to identify what i expect to get out of the main and plenary sessions, and there have been various attempts at various stages to use the main sessions to give feedback from workshops, but, for example, last year i went to the security, openness, privacy open session, and the feedback from the workshops was very much a bolt-on right at the end -- right at the end of the session. And i think that might be that we end up losing an opportunity because when people do workshops, they go into their little silo in a small room and by the time they've produced the report, well, that particular internet governance forum has been and gone. 
So i wondered whether there was perhaps some way of reserving the plenary sessions towards the end of the meeting, on the last couple of days of the meeting, against the particular themes and using that to get feedback from all the relevant workshops, so that there is some central point of documenting and understanding what were the key issues that came up, and then that, of course, leaves you with the first two days worth of plenary sessions where i think it would be very useful to bring younger people center stage, to use some of the more general discussions which we want to try and get wider orientation for, perhaps on enhanced cooperation, perhaps on human rights implications of certain things, but, you know, that would be my suggestion that we try to make sure that the plenaries are well integrated into the work, and that there is a reason for people to turn up to those particular plenary sessions. Thank you, chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, and on that note, there was also a strong sense that we need to work on integrating bringing in the national regional igfs' initiatives. I think that is also something we can work on. We had some more -- we have some interregional roundtables but they were not given center stage, and i think this is also something worth considering. 
Chris disspain? 
>>chris disspain: thank you, mr. Chair. 
Just a couple of things. First of all, i agree with what you've just said and what martin's just said about the main sessions. 
My observations are, having been involved in these from the very beginning, are that the current way we do them is probably reaching the end of its life cycle. The concept of an hour and a half or three hours on a particular topic, you know, using the same headings we've used since the beginning and trying to find subjects underneath is -- isn't proving very effective, i don't think, for the main sessions, were particularly we will attended in baku, and in fact, i think we had this conversation last year when we said the main sessions weren't particularly we will attended wherever we were the year before. 
And i wonder whether the -- the feedback that we tend to get on the main sessions tends to come from the panelists who are there who -- who come back and say "yes, that all seemed to go very well" and that may well be so for them but i -- there's a lack of convincing feedback from the audience members who attend these main sessions as to their -- as to their worth, whereas there is a significant, in my view, amount of feedback on workshops that indicates that they have worth. 
So i'm very keen to hear what everyone else has to say about the main sessions so that we can move them on in a way that is helpful to the greater picture of the i went, and i certainly think tying them to regional and national igfs and the workshop reports is -- is something worth considering, and not being -- also not being fixed, in that we have to have x number of them. 
We have to have some, but we may not have to have as many as we currently do. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Car on lena is next, and we have many speakers. Yes, carolina. Yes. 
>> thank you. (saying name) lactld. I completely agree with the proposal much rethinking the igf's main sessions, whether we should have six as we had before, whether we should maintain the same topics for them, the subthemes reflected in the -- in the (indiscernible) programs, are then not taken up by the audience or the questions or the panelists are talking about something and then there are questions coming from the floor divorced from the presentations. Maybe some further documentation about what has been the evolution of that main session in the past seven igfs for the newcomers and participants attending main sessions would be a possible solution, but in all, i agree with martin boyle's suggestions and chris disspain's comments that we really need to rethink whether we need six, when and where should we put them, and the extension of these main sessions as well, as part of the whole igf program. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. I have lots and lots of speakers. 
Next was bertrand. Then i have united states, olga, anriette, wendy, valid a, bill smith, china, and let's see how many we can take before lunch. And icc/basis, council of europe. 
>>bertrand de la chapelle: bertrand de la chapelle, internet jurisdiction project. 
Each year we have a session called "emerging issues." The concept of this session has evolved. It was initially intended to be a sort of takeup of issues that had emerged during the igf. It rapidly evolved into trying to make a specific focus on emerging trends and some of those sessions were pretty good, actually. I remember one in vilnius in particular on cloud computing that was quite illustrative. 
However, i wonder whether it wouldn't be better to use such a session -- maybe shorter or longer, like one hour and a half instead three -- to deal with what has happened since the previous igf, like emerging issues in terms of what are the trends in governance issues. We deal in the internet and jurisdiction project with challenges related to jurisdiction and the impact on the cross-border internet, and we see trends involving and there are issues on security and others that would be documented, which is a way to bring the participants up to speed on a certain number ofsome developments much. 
The second thing is, sessions of three hours are clearly too long, and i would like to encourage, as i proposed earlier, to have threads, and to make sessions instead of putting the main sessions at the end, as was proposed, which is not possible given the time with three hours, having different threads -- maybe two, three, or four -- where initial sessions at the beginning of the week would launch the thread, the workshops dealing with that thread would be dealing with the different facets of the issue during the week, and then at the end of the -- of the week, having one, two, or three wrap-up sessions of one hour and a half to sort of launch the issue, broaden it, re-narrow it, so that the work is done in the course of the -- of the week. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. United states. 
>>united states: thank you, chair. Liesyl prawns from the u.s. 
I completely agree with the notion that, as other people have said, of rethinking how to deal with the main sessions and utilize the plenary nature of them, as well as the integration of things that happen at the igf, but -- and maybe this is stating the obvious, based on what other comments that have been made, but i do think that one thing that was not helpful in the main sessions was report-outs from the workshops in a way that kind of hampered the conversation. 
And i can say that as one who did a report-out once, so i -- i realized there's some value for getting on the record from the workshops in a way in the main session, but unfortunately i think the reports and the way that they've been done just hampered the discussion and the dynamism that we really want to get, so i'm all for rethinking how to do that. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I notice an emerging consensus that we are ready to rethink, which is, i think, a very positive move. 
Olga is next. 
>>olga cavalli: thank you, chair. And welcome back, markus. It's so nice to have you here again as our chair. 
Some comments about main sessions. 
There may be value in three-hour sessions if we can go deeper into the discussion. 
One hour and a half sometimes is too few to go into deeper dialogue. I think we should revisit -- revise the main themes. We should focus on things that have happened from the past year, the past igf, into the new one, as bertrand said, so we have to rethink the themes. And i also agree -- and i have said this many times -- this reporting from the workshops doesn't work at all. I mean, i think it's -- it doesn't show the content of the workshops and it's not helpful for the main session. 
I wanted to say something more but i cannot find my note. 
So i'll stop for the moment. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. A brief comment, if you will allow. 
I'm not sure -- i think the three-hour session is -- taxes the attention span of the same speakers, and i think also if you're on a panel for three hours, it's also for the panelists it can be actually quite tedious. But you can -- to pick up on your idea, you could also have two panels dealing with similar aspects or slightly different aspects of an overarching theme. Unesco did that in some of the workshops, okay, the next panel comes in. There is in one workshop, i think, of 90 minutes they had three sets of panelists, which may be a little bit too much but, you know, you can also play with that, with the format. 
>>olga cavalli: chair, if you allow me one more comment that i was forgetting. 
I think in sharm el sheikh, we tried a different model of a main session. It was very much interactive, and i think that was nice. 
Very few -- few panelists and very few speeches, short speeches and a lot of intersection with -- with the public, with the people there. 
That were -- once they were -- i don't know why we came back again to the model of the panel, but that's something that i would like to remember from what we did before. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, but let's just pick up on what chris disspain said, that the current model, i think outlived its usefulness or "sell by" date, however you worded it but i think it was also a little bit my impression we've done it and it's more of the same thing. It's not that they're necessarily bad, but they -- to begin with, people with, people were all excited, it was new, but it sort of sank into routine and there was more of the same thing, and if you can make it more interactive or better, but a lot of energy was spent on the selection of panelists and making sure there's balance there, and then adding one more to be sure and that sort of led to a ritual that i think really has outlasted, i think, its usefulness. 
But anriette. 
>>anriette esterhuysen: thank you, markus. I i don't support what chris disspain has said and other speakers and comments from the u.s. As well. I think using the main session as a way of synthesizing outcomes much workshops as a work, i think it has outlived its value. I think what chris said, we don't have to have multiple main sessions. I do think that maybe one or two with good speakers can be interesting, and i want to really thank patrick ryan for his comments earlier because i think resources are extremely important and i think one area where we see this is in the lack of funding available to invite new, interesting, relevant speakers to the igf. And i think maybe one or two main sessions with good speakers would be very valuable. 
Just to share an experience from baku, some -- apc as well as some other governments and organizations involved in the igf organized a round table in baku. We organized a human rights roundtable and its goal was for workshops that had dealt with human rights to come together and share the outcomes of their workshops. Due to time constraints, we weren't able to -- or scheduling clashes -- to have all the rights-related workshops. We had probably at least seven. 
And it worked extremely well. And we gave the workshops time to present their input. We were able to discuss where there were overlaps and where there were gaps. So as a mechanism for achieving what we have been unable to achieve is zibet sizing workshops, i can really propose and recommend that format of the roundtable -- of the magic roundtable. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I think this picks up up on also what martin suggested more or less, yes, to have the workshops coming together and having an interactive discussion, not just reading records. I think we agree on that. 
Wendy? 
>>wendy seltzer: thank you very much, chair, and to our hosts. I want to echo what was heard. And i think we should -- about rethinking our working mode because i think what we are revealing trying to do is to engineer serendipity. We are trying to figure out how to help people to meet the people they need to meet to learn the things they need to learn and we may not know what those are coming in. 
And so i would suggest fewer sessions that get a larger audience together in the same place that gives participants a shared base of knowledge a shared meeting point where they can find that perhaps that technical issue they didn't think was really interesting is critical to their work six months down the road and now they know whom to contact because they've seen interesting panelists. Or equally important, they have seen interesting fellow participants in the audience. We say that a lot of what we do is bring together audience members and everyone is a participant. I think that getting the participants into the same room more frequently rather than spread out among 10 or 11 different rooms could help that. 
I also often find that the most important part of a conference is its hallway track, the unscheduled moments, the breaks and the moments of mingling. It is important to have the key sessions to get the right people to come, and it is equally important to leave them time to discuss what they've learned afterwards in unstructured modes. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I like organizing serendipity. That sounds good. 
[ laughter ] 
I think there was agreement a long time ago that the mingling factor was important, and we should not fill every available slot with meetings. And so the -- i think to have a two-hour free slot or lunchtime slot for people to be able to interact, i think that's considered key. 
But then how many sessions, less sessions -- let me basically come to the discussion of workshops. I still have quite a number of speakers. China. (indiscernible), are you speaking? 
>> china: thank you, chair. (saying name). This is the first name for our intervention, our first experience. Our condolence to mrs. Chin. It is very sad news for us. She had put a lot of energy and efforts to the other meetings and also made great contributions for the igf process. 
And i think we should welcome you, mr. Markus, to come back to the igf meeting as a the interim chairman. Under your leadership, we have a very efficient and effective discussion. 
For the main session, the workshop, i agree with you that it is very good to rethink the main session and the workshop. Under the current mechanism, i think the big issue or the big problem that the workshop and the main session, there is no direct connection between them because in this current arrangement, the main session is held in parallel with the plenary. And, first off, the workshop has no time or has no opportunity to report back to the plenary sessions and the plenary don't even have enough time to digest the outcomes from the workshop. So it is my suggestion that we should -- maybe we can give more time for the discussion of the workshop. 
So my suggestion that because we have two preparatory process -- time, one -- the first preparatory in february and the second in may, but traditionally, we use this preparatory process to just identify the main themes of the meeting. 
I think maybe we could use just one preparatory meeting to identify the main sessions because it is not very difficult. I think the (indiscernible) of this change is that after this meeting, the under-secretary-general of the u.n. Will publish the (indiscernible) of the meeting, and it will need more time for the organizer of the workshop to prepare for their workshops. And with the second preparatory meeting, i think we can live for the workshop to organize the events. We can leave all the time and all the venues for the workshop organizers to have very fruitful discussions during the second preparatory process. 
And after the second preparatory meeting, they still have two months' time and they can prepare the written reports to the plenary meeting. And during the plenary meeting, maybe the plenary meeting can choose the workshop organizers as the panelists and have ample time and also the participants can have more time to read and digest or read their reports from the workshop. And i think, you know, it's very important for the participants to know what is happening or what is the outcomes or what is the discussions from the workshops. Actually, they are not -- the traditional way of publishing the six main themes and the participants, you need to note what will be discussed during the annual meeting. So we give more time, more opportunity, more chance for the workshop to have a fruitful discussion and give more opportunity for them to present the outcomes to the planning meetings. And i think this would be more beneficial for the efficiency of the annual meetings. 
And i think for the overall themes and the meetings, i think the host country of indonesia has made a very good proposal on the basis of indonesia's proposal, we can in tomorrow's mag meeting determine the overall themes in this meeting. 
And the six main themes, i think, in practice saying the past meetings, we have followed the six main themes. These six main themes is the pillar of the igf. 
We can remain to use it also as this year's main themes. It will give more ample time, more fruitful discussion for the workshop to discuss at the preparatory meetings. 
And i think with this kind of arrangement, adjustment when you give more involvement of the multistakeholders. So previous -- because also -- (audio dropped out) -- but we should give more time, more chance for the multistakeholders to discuss, to reflect their views. So i think we can make this igf meeting more fruitful with more outcomes. Thank you, mr. Chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. Before breaking for lunch, there are still many, many speakers who put up their flag, but they can speak after lunch. I would like to give the floor to a remote participant. I think it is mag member paul wilson. 
>> yes, we have paul wilson who is trying to participate remotely. 
>> paul wilson: good morning. Can you hear me? Good morning. Can you hear me? Hello. I am trying to speak. Hello? 
>>chair kummer: paul. We have some audio. We cannot hear you, but we can read you. Just carry on. 
>>paul wilson: i can see and hear you very well. Okay. Now i can see myself on the transcript so i guess i can be heard. 
>>chair kummer: now we can hear you. 
>>paul wilson: okay. Thank you very much. And hello to everyone. My name is paul wilson. I'm a member of the mag. 
(audio interference). 
I'm really story not to be in paris but i had a clash here with meetings in singapore. Very happy to have joined the unesco meetings yesterday (audio interference). Very happy as well. So thanks to the u.n. Staff for making it possible. Congratulations, to you, too, markus, on your appointment. It is great news. 
I have been hearing some of the first session of the consultation about main themes and i have heard some but not all of the suggestions. It seemed there are a lot of good ideas. I may not have heard them all but some of them at least seem to be linked to the wsis+10 meetings which is great. We heard from bertrand about the importance of multistakeholderism principles and about enhanced cooperation. 
There have been a few other good -- a few good proposals that seem to be getting a little complicated. 
And i wanted to suggest considering something short and simple which is actually linked to the wsis+10 discussions as well in a pretty obvious way. And that would be to consider an encompassing main theme for the igf as simply this one: internet cooperation. I think now really is the time to talk about cooperation. I think internet cooperation is what we're all doing as a term which, i think, invokes internet governance but with the concept of cooperation obviously there as well. 
And i think the timing for that -- for adopting internet cooperation as a theme mighting quite good in terms of leading up to the wsis+10. If that's not something that flies in the case of this meeting, then i would like to suggest that -- or i would plan to maybe develop that idea in a workshop proposal and i might come back to it next year if it seems to be a possibility then. 
That's all i will say at the moment. I realize you are about to go for a break. It is dinner time for me, too. I will try to rejoin after that in a couple of of hours' time. Thanks again for the opportunity. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, paul. And, indeed, i would suggest we break. I will quickly read out who i have on my speakers list, and if i miss out on something please shout. Council of europe, unesco, european commission, icc/basis, (indiscernible), bill drake, paul rendek and (saying name) and matthew shears. Adam? Mexico, is it? 
Hang on. We can always add. That is just basically reading out those that had up their hands. 
>> (speaker off microphone). 
>>chair kummer: okay, okay. May i also suggest if you have it up, keep it up. If it is like that, that means you are -- i have read out paul. Yes. Andrea. Okay. We have a rich program waiting for us this afternoon. Enjoy your lunch. We resume at 2:30 in this room, again, 11 and not 2. Thank you very much. 
(lunch break.) 
>>chengetai masango: ladies and gentlemen, we will have an informal meeting of the regional and national igfs in this room now. So if you want to stay for the meeting, please stay. If you are not, could you please exit the room. Thank you.. 
%%%jen{^ 
(lunch break). 
>>chair kummer: can we get started? Please be seated. We are trying to catch up from a little bit of time in the morning due to confusion of the rooms. That would be great if you could take your seats. 
Please, ladies and gentlemen, please, may i ask you to take your seats so we can start on time to catch up a bit. 
Before we start, i would like to give the floor to yijo lansipuro who is the chair of the icann nomcom. He has a commercial. You have the floor. 
>>yijo lansipuro: just to say that the nominating committee of icann will have an outreach reception on the 7th floor in (saying name) at 6:00 and that i have sent an invitation to those whose e-mail addresses i knew but just to say that this is for all. Thanks. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Yrjo, so reception at 6:00 on the 7th floor to meet with the icann nomcom. 
Now, before we resume, i requested the floor from janis karklins who has another meeting at quarter to 3:00. So i'm sure you don't mind if we anticipate him and give him the floor right now before we resume the regular order. 
Please, janis. 
>>janis karklins: thank you. We were number 2 on the regular order list. So flipping unesco first. Welcome to unesco. We are glad this meeting is takes place in this house the day after the wsis+10 review conference where many of you participated and contributed well. 
As you know, unesco has been a big supporter and contributor to internet governance forum. Every year, we are organizing a series of seminars and workshops in the framework of the igf in the areas which falls within the mandate of our organization. Your focus, of course, is on freedom of expression on the internet, issues of privacy, multilingualism and promotion of local content production. 
Therefore, we have already seven years of experience in participating and have drawn some conclusions. And i would like to maybe offer you three points from our observations. First of all, i think we need to refer to the outcome document of the improvements working group on improvements of igf and ensure that recommendations which have been developed are implemented or at least we make all efforts to implement them. 
First of them, as i see here, is sharpening outcomes or develop more tangible outputs. And what i hear as a bit of criticism of igf is that this is talk shop and there is no really outcome. 
And i would like to reiterate my suggestion which i made last year during the igf consultations in the framework of the wsis forum, we need to think about voluntary reporting mechanisms for those organizations who participate in igf where they inform all others on the practical steps or actions they have taken as a result of discussions during the igfs or lessons learned or information learned during the meetings and introduce that report at the next igf and that will show whether the igf is really just a talk show or there are outcomes or there are actions taken after igf as a result of the actions of igf. And i can commit who myself that unesco will submit to the secretariat this type of voluntary report. It will not be long. Maybe one page, describing actions what unesco took after baku igf. 
Secondly, we clearly witnessed in baku that the plenaries are running out of steam and we need to put our heads together to find a way how to revitalize debates in the plenary meetings. 
The final point on workshops, it is always very difficult to assess how many workshops we need to organize versus the quality of workshops and the themes which we organize -- which we address. I think last year, my feeling was maybe there were a little bit too many in terms of workshops. 
But, again, i'm not well-placed because during our meeting we had ten parallel events at the same time. So i feel a little bit guilty talking about this. 
Nevertheless, we need to find the right balance between quality and quantity and certainly we need to learn from our experiences and ensure that the workshop rooms are well sound isolated because sound isolation is an issue. 
In baku, we were saved with the headphones. But it is not obvious and it is not very conducive atmosphere for discussions when you hear all noises in the world in your meeting room and do not hear what panelists or the public is saying. These are the points which i would offer for your consideration as a contribution. 
And, as i said, i commit unesco submitting voluntary reports on steps taken after baku meeting as a result of our engagement in baku with our partners and with the public. 
And i invite other organizations or individuals to do the same. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much, a, for your hospitality; b, for your continued commitment to the igf; and, c, for your constructive suggestions. And you finished in time for you to go to the other meeting. You are right, you would have been number 2 on the list, maybe even have made it as number 2. Anyway, thank you very much indeed. 
Number one on the list was the council of europe. Please. 
>>council of europe: thank you, mr. Chair. I'm thinking about your internet dialogue on internet governance which is to make a new start and be creative and innovative and give it a new feel. Perhaps that's something you are thinking about in the igf, to make it fresh, to feel excited about going to the igf and i think we also have to think about the whole experience, the whole experience of going there from day one to the last day. I'm thinking about conversations i've had with games, developers in different countries and when they design a game, they design a game with regard to the experience you are having when you are playing that game. Or when you are on a social media experience, it is about the experience you have when you are on a social media site and where it takes you. It is quite a (indiscernible) but to say what is the igf experience and what do people want? I think a feeling of togetherness is important. So plenaries, wherever you take them, if they are shorter, are quite important, at least several, some in order to feel together. 
The size of the rooms, these are very practical points, but if a room is too big, then people spread, it feels very empty so you don't feel together. 
In terms of the titles of events, we are spending a little bit of time in europe to make the title short and catchy and very, very attractive. When we prepare for the igf in the council of europe, we look at all the events and it is the title of the event which takes you into clicking on it and looking at the details. It is very easily missed events if the title is not correct. So in eurodig also, we're trying very hard to change the format. We've -- we're playing around with things like smaller shorter sessions so there's room for plenary sessions, there's room for workshops when there's a -- sort of a more targeted focus. We also introduced flashes which is like a maximum 30-minute session in a smaller space which is open to people who want to talk about something very specific which may not have the audience of a larger room, a larger plenary or a larger workshop. 
We're also talking about testimonials, storytelling, brown bag lunches approach to having very small, much more intimate discussions, much more informal discussions, because it's the informality of a discussion which is quite interesting, because you're not speaking in a big room like this and people listening to you and that can be quite intimidating for some people. So the smaller sometimes the space, perhaps the more informal sometimes, just having a circle of chairs rather than, you know, tables all lined in a rowan with a platform in front of you, that can be quite intimidating. So i think most things -- if you want to change style and be perhaps more innovative, then that's something to think about too. 
And something which i've come across over the last few years is people un-meetings and un-conferences, which means that they're trying to do something completely different. They're trying to take away the protocol of a meeting. They're having an un-meeting or an un-conference. They just assemble like a flash mob and they set the agenda on the spot and they talk about things. In a quite informal manner. 
And one last point is that in terms of the topics which are affixed for the plenaries and perhaps for the workshops, again, in eurodig, there is an idea that we try to go to the hot topics, we try to really focus on the tension of the topic, and we also try to limit the topics because i think the thing which is -- this is my personal opinion now. I think there's far -- i mean, the internet issues are so spread and there are so many things to talk about that, you know, it's scatter guns across, and it's very hard to catch up and then it becomes quite a general discussion. 
I mean, there might be some merit in thinking about, you know, limiting or focusing on certain very, very hot topics and giving them space, and then, you know, if you limit it in certain ways, then you leave space for other things, and if other hot topics come out, you have space in which you can welcome them a bit later on. 
So in order to be flexible in terms of the approach to programming and events. 
Thank you, mr. Chair. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. Icc/basis. 
>>icc/basis: thank you, chair. This is ayesha hassan on behalf of icc/basis. 
So icc/basis submitted a very comprehensive written contribution, very early on, and since then we were really pleased to have the opportunity to read other stakeholders' contributions, have informal conversations with many people across stakeholder groups, and have, therefore, build beyond our initial written contribution to focus on many of the good ideas that we found others had put forward and to refine on some of the issues that we had identified for main sessions or key sessions at this year's igf. 
So we would agree and are open to the ideas that others have put forward about how many named sessions we need and how long each one needs to be. For certain topics, they could be split into 90 minutes, et cetera. 
So i'm going to put forward a series of topic areas that we feel deserve a main or key session attention, but again, if we work into -- if we work on creative formats, some of these issues could be put into some other kind of session as well. We just think it's important this year to have certain of these main sessions take place. 
So for instance, we agree with many people who have put forward the idea that there should be a main session on internet multistakeholder principles. We think this would be very timely and a good opportunity to build forward on those discussions. 
We would also propose that an ad hoc open group be set up to prepare that session, with perhaps mag members playing the role they do for main sessions to help coordinate the logistics of it, et cetera, but that would be a session that we would fully support. 
We also feel that an enhanced cooperation session with a similar open group to prepare the session well in advance would be a positive contribution to this year's agenda. 
I think we should look at the main session categories that we've been using in the past and not look at changing the session titles as being an elimination of them at all. It's not that they're being deletedsome. 
We would propose, as the council of europe has talked about, focusing on issues, and so really the proposal would be that in the space where we are really all focused on ensuring a good emphasis on development policy issues and governance issues, instead of having a general internet governance development session, we should choose a couple of critical topics this year and really dig into them. 
So two of our ideas in that regard would be ixps and spam, and have those sessions be very substantive, really in-depth discussion, but also sharing of best practices, identifying solutions and options for addressing these issues. And the goal should be that people leave the session with something in their hands and in their minds that is either new or just really helpful for them in trying to really address those issues. 
Another issue area that we think deserves a key session would be local content development. This has interest across stakeholder groups, and it's also a development issue, and again, that would be a very helpful session. 
Others have brought up spam, as the e.u. Commission has mentioned. An in-depth session focused on spam, we believe, with governance options and best practices and statistics and a real dialogue about how you address spam and what are the options, that would be another area we'd like to see in the agenda. 
So again, this is to say that we support those who have said that the security, openness, privacy, access and diversity, and perhaps ig4d don't need to remain as titles. We are proposing that main sessions focus on critical topics that fall within those categories. 
We also believe that in emerging issues and taking stock session should remain part of the agenda and are open to developing what the specific issues would be in that session, if they're combined or in the two separate sessions. 
We support the concrete ideas put forward by many on keeping the capacity-building and development issues, both in the main sessions and in the workshops. 
In the critical internet resource area, we feel that it's important to move that discussion forward, and again, instead of looking at cir broadly, look at some of the governance issues around power and cooling and things that affect the ability to have servers. 
I know some of my members have more experience with those issues and can jump in to elaborate further. 
So moving beyond the broad buckets that we have, we think that creatively working together to find new interactive and useful formats is welcomed. I would support anriette's reference to a human rights roundtable. Many people who participated in that roundtable in baku were very impressed with the kind of substantive discussion that took place and the experience they had. We would support looking at how to use that format for some of the topics that we've mentioned. 
We'd also support unesco's idea of the voluntary reporting. This year should be about moving the igf forward with the igf improvements recommendations in mind, and also just making sure that this is an experience that people come away with -- again, with they feel like they should be there, they need to be there, and they were glad they were there. 
Also, generally -- and we can provide further input when we talk further about workshops, but the discussion about balance between quality and quantity is an important one. In past years, icc/basis has also suggested that we might limit the number of proposals per entity so that there is an opportunity for many to have workshop proposals considered and selected. 
But we should be brave this year in terms of both the main sessions and the workshops to ensure that the program is full and rich and interesting and that people come away from the overall schedule feeling like they really learned something and have good things to take home with them. 
Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. That was a rich menu and i take it: let's be brave. 
I would have one question, which to me at least is not quite clear. 
Do we keep the old main themes? Up to now, i have not necessarily heard that people want to move away from them, but rather, refocus the sessions but the themes could be there in the background and they have, in the past, i think served us well as an overall concept. 
But what i do hear is that the way the organizations in the past under the broad heading of, let's say, "access" are not focused enough, and you mentioned, let's say, local content could be under internet governance for development, but it could also be under diversity. But then we will drill down to have more of a subject. 
My feeling is that to get rid of all the major themes we have had in the past since 2006 as they were evolving -- in essence, we only had four but then they evolved a bit -- might be too radical a break with the past, but that we can keep them as an overall heading and tweak, then, the sessions and drill down a bit deeper. 
I see people waving hands. Would they react to my -- okay. Let me interrupt quickly the order of speakers and give the floor to chris and to bill. 
>>chris disspain: thank you. Fine. Okay. My only -- the only point i would make is that i don't think we should abandon them, but i think that what's come to be is that they all have to have their own main session, and i think that's something that we need to look atsome. 
So they should still be there. They guide us. They guide the workshops as -- for the main headings that they're under and so on, but i think we need to be very careful that we don't just put ourselves straight back into the position where we suddenly have to have a main session for every single one of those. 
>>chair kummer: okay. I was told i should actually give the full name and also the affiliation to help the scribes, so bill smith from paypal. 
>>esme smith: yes, bill smith, paypal. I would be either more heretical or bold and suggest that we get -- get rid of the things that date back to 2006. 
And that the -- the major themes that we heard in the session from this morning, i think, would be more interesting to people attending, and i have seen us struggle in past years trying to fit workshops into one of the four or six major themes, and i think a better -- better classification system would, in fact, help us. 
>>chair kummer: may -- i see now that quite a number of people would like to react to that, and that would disturb the flow of the people who have been waiting in the queue. 
So sorry, i started all this, but i think it's a discussion worth having but can we take it up at a later stage and continue with the order of speakers we have on the list? 
And maybe the speakers who have put their name down may also wish to react to this question. 
So i go back to the old order, but you all will have an opportunity to comment. 
Okay. There was vladimir niche niche from diplofoundation was the next speaker. 
>>international diplomatic academy: thank you, thank you very much markus. (saying name) from diplofoundation. I share first a couple of ideas on a couple of issues. Some as a reflection to discussions on-on or brainstorming on the mag list, and some of my own. 
The first one is the flow. As i see the flow of the sessions, last year we had a good -- and year before we had a good exercise of the first session for newcomers. Last year, it was a little bit last-minute organized but i think this should remain as the beginning of the igf involving also the new governments and others who are new at the igf to map the field. 
Then we should go into the discussions -- mapping the discussions and i suppose a main session -- main sessions in the beginning might serve for mapping the field. 
Then we might go into workshops where we exactly go into details. I don't think the main sessions should be going too much into details. 
And then at the end, we might use the main sessions to wrap up and make summaries and close with taking stock. 
There were some common themes on the mag list. We might think about avoiding overlapping main sessions and workshops. I think it's worth discussing. I'm not sure, i don't even have the position on that, but it's worth thinking about it. 
When it comes to the main sessions, i do agree that three-hour sessions are too long, and i do think we should think about how to split it into less, if we cannot change the interpreters' working time. 
One of the very important things for the main sessions is interactivity, and i take from the eurodig experience and one of the best sessions i've ever seen was, in fact, in geneva in eurodig 2009 when there were only two moderators without any panelists. It was amazing. And i think this is something we should go. Of course you have a lot of people, keynote speakers, in the audience, but have very short inputs, not sitting on the panel and so on. 
So this -- we should consider this. 
Workshops should feed into main sessions, but also main sessions should feed into workshops. 
So if the main session is mapping the field, it can set up the ground and help the workshops fit into the workshops, and then workshops can feed back. 
As for the format of different sessions, we can consider -- and i think we did in the past as well -- different formats of also workshops. If it is a new topic, then probably it can be a panel with more speakers that tend to map the technical, economic, legal aspects, and so on. 
If it is not a new topic, it should be an open discussion with as few panelists as possible. 
If it is a ripe topic, it can be a final roundtable where one can try to reach some of the agreements. 
Speakers for the workshops, again, should be as few as possible. Definitely we should avoid having same names appearing in a number of sessions. Probably we should even limit the number of appearances per person on different sessions. Otherwise we have what they call the usual suspects in all the sessions. 
Then there are different formats that we can also introduce, and we'll be talking in response to the cstd report about a capacity-building track, and capacity-building, for instance, doesn't have to be only in the format of sessions. 
We discuss and we brainstormed a number of other formats like the session for newcomers, which can be with a group work, like the training if someone wants to provide training sessions, that's okay. Like the fair. Like even the questions and answers spaces, whether within the igf village we could have a place where anyone can come and say "hey, i don't know anything about ipv6, can someone help me?" And then we have people that can help him or her about certain things they don't understand. 
So we should think also about other different formats of activities, not only the sessions. 
And to conclude, a short reflection on the reporting. 
I agree with some points that i've heard that the reports we've been doing thus far, i think, were quite useless. I'm not sure if we have statistics of how many people have been reading the reports on the web site after the igf. I'm afraid it wouldn't be too many. 
The reports were long. They were not structured. It was not easy to find the way for certain topics. 
There is quite a simple technical solution and also conceptual, which is bringing in the tags or the key words, not only per session area but also that the organizers are encouraged to, for instance, introduce the topic of net neutral or intellectual property rights or child safety and so on. We can thinking of a new of tags and i'm happy to move it through the mag if this is an interesting point. 
But this could help us follow the reports more clearly on specific topics and even key words after the igf and even prepare some functional summaries based on that. 
And finally, i think we should capitalize more on social media and social networks. 
The majority of people at the igf, and even those remote, use social media -- twitter, facebook, blogs and so on, reports -- there is a great potential crowdsourcing of these feeds, and feeding that into the reports of the igf as well as during the process as we did in baku. And again, i'm happy to help with that, but probably more on that when we are talking about remote participation in the next stage. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I think the different formats is something there is fairly broad agreement on. We heard that already. And there are certain sessions, as you pointed out, that everybody would agree on, like the session for newcomers, i think, and also the taking stock session that everybody seems to agree that these are useful sessions. 
Different form -- we had in the past actually -- i think it was hyderabad -- experimented with poster sessions and i seem to remember that worked quite well but that depends a little bit on the locality, but that's definitely something we should revisit. 
We had also at one point tried -- or discussed the possibility of having speed dialogue, but then shied away from doing it. 
There are -- there are different things we can explore. 
I have my long list so robert, you are on my list of speakers. You can put down your hand and -- sorry. Your name is? 
>> (speaker is off microphone.) 
>>chair kummer: i'll give you the floor now, but just to make sure that i have your name. 
And then next speaker is bill drake. Yes. Bill. 
>>bill drake: thank you, markus. 
I -- i'm feeling a little confused now because in the morning i thought that we were moving towards a consensus about getting rid of the old rubrics for the main sessions and now i feel like the movement is back in the other direction again. 
I'll only state my own preference, which i've stated repeatedly for several years, which is that i -- i agree with bill smith. I wouldn't necessarily call it dumping them. Maybe that sounds too unceremonious. But i think it is time for some innovation. 
We have so many circumstances where there are hot issues being debated out there in the wider internet governance landscape, and we can't sort of organize main sessions around them as yet because they don't fit the boxes and i think that's just been a real straitjacket. 
It's not clear to me that it really serves that much purpose anymore to continue to stick with those old rubrics when we've got so many options for interesting other topics. 
So i would certainly be amongst those who think it's time to retire them. 
We could maybe incorporate them for the purpose of having rubrics to organize workshops under, we could retain some of those and maybe have the mag think of some other ones as well, but i wouldn't -- i would really like to see us go beyond being limited by those. 
More generally, though, a few other points i would like to make. 
I agree with those who suggest that having co-moderated a couple of the cir main sessions, i definitely think three hours is way too long, doesn't work, let's break it in half. 
However, there may be some topics where it really does make sense to have two separate panels perhaps rotated or two different formats rotated on a particular topic when it's something that really requires a more in-depth treatment, et cetera. 
I think we have to also think about not just in terms of the kinds of things lee hibbard was suggesting of mixing formats. I'd love to go back to the idea of having debates. I mean, we've talked about it in the past but we've never done it. Why not -- and it doesn't have to be two people. You could have debate teams. I mean, look at what they do at the old oxford debates. You know, there are a lot of things that we could try to do to try to juice things up, where you have a few people on one side and a few people on the other side and a motion or something. I think we just have to find a way because everybody i talk to in successive igfs over and over, is telling me that the main sessions are losing their interest. And we need to rebrand them and give them fundamentally new character if we're going to draw people back into them in a meaningful way. 
In terms of how they're organized, i very much agree with ayesha on the point about having ad hoc groups, and the principles discussion that we had yesterday points to that. 
I think, you know, we've had a lot of back-and-forth in the past about whether the planning groups for the individual main sessions had to be mag only or could be mag plus, under what terminates they could be mag plus and it all got very complicated but when there's energy in the community to come together on particular topics like enhanced cooperation or human rights or principles, and people really want to do stuff, i think we should really capitalize on that, have the mag serve as a coordination function but really let these groups organize an activity that includes a main session, and perhaps to grow into something more on those particular topics. 
So that's something, perhaps, we have to talk about in the mag meeting tomorrow, but i -- i would certainly hope we can avoid falling back into the pattern where we think that the mag has to be the ones that manage the -- all the main sessions by themselves, because quite frankly, a lot of times there isn't enough engagement by all the people who are put into each of those working groups anyway. 
Is we really should be drawing on people's energy from outside. 
I wanted to suggest one other topic which is completely orthogonal. I don't think anybody has ever suggested it but maybe it has been. We go around the world and we never do anything of a regional nature. And i just wonder, couldn't -- wouldn't it make sense if we go to asia to at least have one session or two main sessions on key internet governance issues in the region? And if we go to africa, we go to europe, wherever we may be -- i mean, wouldn't this perhaps be a way of trying to get some people from those regions more energized about participating? We've never really played with that. 
Now, there is obviously issues about being able to populate the panelists with the right people and we always have the problem of trying to figure out who can we get. When people talk about the usual suspects on panels, part of that, i know, is because when people are trying to figure out who put on a panel, they struggle. They say "who do we know from africa who does x?" And we end up with the same people and so on. 
So it is a challenge to come up with names. But i would really suggest at least thinking about whether some kind of a regional component couldn't be added for some amount of the time. I think it would be a fun thing to do. 
And finally, a last point just on the workshops and their integration with the main sessions. 
Ists among those who, years ago, thought that trying to integrate the two was really necessary, but i really do feel like the reporting thing is a failed exercise and we have to abandon it and if we want to think about ways to link the workshops to main sessions, we have to think of something else. The report-ns just don't work. People all lose their patience with them, and nobody pays attention when it's going on. 
And i would definitely support -- one other point ayesha made -- and i've always felt this way -- we should limit the number of workshops being proposed by any one -- or that can be accepted by any one entity or organizer. I know from being -- looking at some of these, there are particular individuals who submit eight workshop proposals and hope to get one or two. This is not a good way of organizing things. We should have some sort of cap to spread things. 
Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. A comment on the regional session, which we have never tried, but they are a natural partner would be the various regional igfs. For instance, in asia, it's a very active asia-pacific regional igf that could help populate such a session. 
On -- well, we have not discussed the workshop proposals. I will refrain from commenting on that. 
Paul ren dick is next. Paul, from ripe. Reseaux ip europeens yes, hello. It's paul ren dick from the ripe ncc. I'm actually going to keep this very brief because i think the last 10 or 12 speakers have pretty much, you know, said what i wanted to say. I want to train in on a few points. I must agree here actually with bill and bill. The points that are brought forward. I also believe these main sessions need to be looked at. 
Let's not forget, though, that there are always newcomers to the igf process, and i'd like to concentrate a little bit on how we can integrate them here, because i feel that when we go to an igf from one year to the next, we start from ground zero, so it's very difficult for us to actually take, you know, some progress in the discussions without having to start from zero again, and i think that my colleague, ayesha, brought some of these points forward, where we could actually pick a few topics that we could go a little bit deeper in. I think that constantly coming back to an igf and then getting these panels of these 12 distinguished speakers, which is very fantastic, but isn't really actually promoting better, deeper dialogue into where we need to be going. 
So i think there need to be a look at how we integrate the newcomers into the igf, because that's very important, but we need to look also at the process of moving a little further with the debate. 
The second point that i also wanted to raise is the idea of cooperation. I think that at all levels -- national, regional, and of course the global igf -- we need to be making sure that we take a look at the multistakeholder process, and that this is the reality in how we are moving forward. 
Pools made a very good comment about internet cooperation and what cooperation will mean. I hope that that will somewhere come into the discussions when we are looking at the overarching points. 
And the last thing that i wanted to say was that the regional and national igfs, i think they need to play a little bit more of an important role inside the global igf. I think that the area inside the igf where we discuss these or -- or how they're integrated doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, and i think that the only way we can truly see what's happening out there globally is to take a look at some of these national and regional efforts and see what we can see that's happening globally that everybody has an issue on. 
And sorry, i actually do want to make one more point, if i could, and that is, the -- putting the amount of workshops that we have next to these very large and distinguished main panel sessions that we have, it does not work, and i can tell you from an organization that has had to organize a few workshops, multiple looking at other, other areas, the amount of work that goes into actually putting a workshop in and then you realize that you're up against a panel session and all the other rooms are empty, it really is a waste. We must look at a different way of working here. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. By -- it's not from icann. 
>>icann: thank you, markus. Actually, much has been said so i'm going to just keep it, you know, short. 
On main sessions, i support the notion of, you know, less or -- or fewer sessions, maybe even shorter and, you know, designed around topics rather than broad -- broad themes. 
Same for -- for workshops in temples of, you know, the number of workshops. We cannot go with 80 or, you know, 80-plus workshops. I think -- we've discussed this before, and i think mag tends to do, you know, some improvements there, ensuring that, you know, the workshop is well preferred, the proposal is complete, a clear set of questions. It would be good, rather, for the main sessions or the workshops to have a list of clear questions in advance and to come out with, you know, a list of key messages and in the end we've seen here this week and this meeting that, you know, the workshops came out with some recommendations in the end and that was, i think, useful exercise to do.your question about maintaining the old themes, i shouldn't do that. I don't think neither for the main sessions nor for the workshops. And i think oftentimes we find that when we put a proposal for workshop, it could easily fit under one or more of those broad themes. So i think there is no point in maintaining them. I will leave it at that. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. My apology. I must have swallowed your name. It didn't come across properly on the transcription. It was baher esmat. Please repeat the name if i haven't pronounce it had correctly for the benefit of the tran description. 
>>chair kummer: matthew shears from ctd. 
>>matthew shears: i'm going to try a little bit of a risky thing together and try to put some things together we have heard so far. If i misquote you, please forgive me. I like anriette's idea about moving to a roundtable format. Maybe we could consider rather than main sessions, maybe we consider tracks of systematic doing away with the whole notion of main sessions and ongoing plenaries. 
Maybe to build on bill's idea, that week actually have a whole morning that's managed and run by the regional igf or a local igf explore issues that are permanent to that region and to that igf. Really focus on some key learnings, rather than just saying how many people turned up, let's talk about what they learned about managing an igf, what they learned about multistakeholder processes and what they learned about from a content perspective. 
Then perhaps we can actually leave the plenaries to an opening plenary, a youth plenary perhaps and then perhaps a closing plenary. If we need to go any further than that, we can have a looking back a looking forward. And the rest of the time can be spent doing substantive and productive things. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. The term "main session" was coined as you recall the very first year instead of plenaries because the notion then was way don't -- plenary sounds so traditional where main session sounds maybe a little bit more neutral. 
But in essence it is a three-hour slot where we have interpretation and we can do with that slot whatever we want to do with that slot. That can be a roundtable, whatever. I mean, i think we discussed whether or not there was merit in having interpretation and i think everybody agreed there was merit to have at least one track with interpretation. And that is what was the main sessions. 
But we don't have to continue calling them main session. We can do with these slots whatever we want, but we cannot change the overall slot three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon. But within these parameters, we can do whatever we can come up with. And the roundtable notion is a notion, i think, that is much favored, that workshop organizers get together, have a discussion. Same with all the regional igfs. I think there is a very, very strong support for that, for giving more space. So let's explore all the various notions. At least i think there is a fairly broad consensus in the room that the old format is not particularly attractive anymore. It was maybe important to get started. But a lot of the work focused not really on substantive preparation but, rather, on finding a balance of speakers and we ended with these huge panels, 12 people or more. And then obviously three-hour slots, that is not particularly exciting. 
So i think there is, i would think, a broad convergence of views that we have to move beyond that. 
Qusai al-shatti is the next person. 
>>qusai al-shatti: qusai al-shatti from kuwait. Thank you, mr. Chair. Many comments have been raised about the setup of the igf and the long list of workshops and the participation and the panel on the format of the panels. 
But as a suggestion for this structure of the igf, i would like to enter an old suggestion that was made by colleague chris disspain before. And we have one day for plenaries and one day for workshops and not let them overlap. 
At least in that format, we would have a larger participation in the plenaries while it is important to have a dialogue and discuss issues and, yet, we do not lose participation in the workshops. 
And in a setup like that, we can also practically have the workshop be a feeder into the plenaries. So one suggested format is a suggestion that was made by chris, i guess, two years ago, is to have one day for the plenaries -- like, if the igf is four days, two days dedicated for plenaries, two days for the workshops. So that would be a suggestion. 
>>chair kummer: that works if you have the first two days with interpretation and the last two days without interpretation or it does also work if one workshop gets interpretation, that would be favoring one workshop instead of others. But if you have a (indiscernible) session with interpreters, you cannot give the interpreters a day off. This is from just a purely technical point something to consider. 
I have india on my list but don't see the flag up. You are welcome to take the floor. 
>> india: thank you, chair. What i had to say has already been covered but i will repeat it. (indiscernible) was mentioned that the workshops and the main sessions have a function of including people with their invitations as panelists, manufacture us are able to partake. It is much easier for us to participate in the meetings of the igf than if they are open sessions and everybody is invited. That doesn't always work out for some of us. Just wanted to put that for people to think of in the redesign the format of the igf meeting. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I think that's an important footnote. I think we discussed it several years back. There is a direct correlation between the overall figure of participants and the number of workshops as panelists in workshops find it easier to get travel permission to attend a meeting in far-away places if they have a speaking role than if they just go to have a listening role. 
Adam peake is my next speaker. 
>> adam peake: i will pass. I think everybody has just been about said except for one thing about the workshops. And that is as we are looking at being adventurous for themes in the main sessions, keep the five themes for the workshops because that brings familiarity and people will be used to them but will be much more adventurous for the themes in the main sessions. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. Parminder? 
>>parminder jeet singh: thank you, chair. On the main issue being discussed, i agree with many people who have spoken before me, that you need to go to focused issues and not all thematic areas for the main sessions. 
Also, i repeat my morning point, the point of the working group on improvements to the igf, it is also an important resource and maybe treated as more than just an input to this meeting because it was arrived at by focusing on issues of improvement in the igf. And it is very clear when it says that the main sessions have to be structured around focused policy questions and that mag should take identification of the policy questions. 
And i think that -- and that's also kind of mirrored in a way of the others by most people have spoken of getting more focused and producing more interest in the main sessions. So if we can start looking at the key policy questions which as the report says should be the basis of structuring the main sessions, then i think it is a good way to go forward. 
And also what is important as main issues is that it says policy issues and not operational issues. And i think we all understand the difference between policy issues and operational issues. Main sessions are for key policy issues. (indiscernible) and that's a good way to focus and go forward in this main issue discussion today here. 
And also there is mention in the report of a new purpose of capturing convergences and convergences around those key policy questions. And i understand we should also talk about what that process would or should or can be because that's one of the main -- most of the discussions in the working group form around outputs and focusing on main sessions. 
And i don't think it is very difficult to figure out what are key policy questions if you really sit down to think about what is it in the area of internet governance, which is troubling the world around us today. One of the key questions which all government people want to have sorted out -- and you may have seven or eight and you may need to limit it to three or four. But it is not difficult for any group to find out seven or eight major questions which trouble people around us and which need sorting out. 
Some suggestions have been given by the internet governance caucus. And the (indiscernible), the policies around network neutrality, it has been troubling. Many governments are trying to figure out what are the global models, what can be done around it, and that definitely is a key policy issue. And i think we need to have a main session around it. We need to have a main session around personal data and (indiscernible) of personal data. The french government simply came out of with a document that treated personal data as an economic resource which i'm not really sure is a perfect solution. But that question is a bit of key policy issues which is kind of troubling many people in governments. And we should be taking it up. 
Third was also proposed by some speakers are by talking about principles that could frame policy options. Many groups, oecd, council of europe, brazil, many other smaller groups have come up with principles for policy making as seems to be right with go to actual policy making. So, therefore, what kind of policy questions can be raised, another policy question. 
Second thing, i still think that perhaps in that suggestion i give to mag to concentrate tomorrow, rather there should be a special session of the mag to consider the report of the cstd working group. 
I remember there was a special session a few years back on the instructions of the u.n. Secretary-general to give input into this report. And the whole day was just on that -- on discussing that subject. The report is now and one of the major responsibilities is with the mag to implement it. 
I do think there is a need of a day or two session where the whole report is went through and the mag says this is what we need to do. And i'm quite sure the people at cstd would ask whoever takes a report from the igf to the cstd about what got done on that report. And i can see many things which are very specific. 
There is a mention that the open consultations should share the ig finances with the ig community. Now, one could ask the question why that has not been shared this time or, rather, there is a proposal to share ig finances in the open consultation in may. So there are many things which i think mag needs to take a decision on and probably a day or two of meeting of a special meeting could be held on that purpose. 
Just a couple of comments on the last igf. One was that there was even after seven years enough diversity on the panels. I saw one panel that is on the critical internet resources main session where there were 11 speakers out of which 9 were from the u.s. And that's not something which would normally happen in any kind of global governance system. And i think we should make it a point that there is geographic and other kinds of diversities every time. 
Another thing i noticed, there was a tradition early on that mag members usually did not go on the panels. For the first few years there was -- because they were the people deciding the panels. 
And now last in baku, i saw panels which three or four mag members in the panel and many -- most panels had mag members. I don't want to make it strict true because there may be a subject expeter that is a mag member and you don't need to make strict truths. But the way it was in baku was a little -- i think not the very right way to go about it. And this is something that the mag may consider. 
Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. And the last point, indeed, you're right there. The original idea was mag members stay a little bit back. And there was a movement towards actually having members on the panel. So this is something, i think, for the mag to consider, whether they want to revert to old practices. 
But i think the general feedback we had was clearly a push rather towards more new faces and more diversity. And i think this is something we have to take into account. 
Andrea becalli is the next speaker. Please, andrea. 
>>andrea becalli: thank you, markus. I will refer my interest in ifla to main themes. And we made the suggestion this morning to main theme on public access that actual comes from the longstanding open access and diversity, open access and diversity. 
But there is another point that hasn't been touched upon yet which is the process to organize the main themes. The igf has gone through different ways, through feeder workshops, through combination of workshops into the main theme. So i would just like to see also a discussion on how to organize the main session and once we look into new themes. 
And as i said this morning, i would like to see also more involvement by the commissions. I think they are a good strong asset of the igf. And i just stop here because a lot of things has been said. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I just noticed that i have for some inexplicable reason left out european commission. You have been very patient in waiting. My apologies. 
>>european commission: i want to take us back to the discussion this morning for a suggestion of an earlier theme. I'm sorry i didn't wait for it earlier but i was waiting for clearance from brussels. We would like to propose as a theme for the igf "building bridges." I'll just develop it very, very quickly. 
I guess many of you are aware of our fears for fragmentation of the internet. We think there is a post-wcit type of setup now that we should face and we should discuss. 
We think the igf is a great platform where we could hold this discussion and transcend a bit from the national interest. So what we would propose as a theme is "building bridges between different approaches to internet governance, between different stakeholders, between different governments." I think that's a little bit roughly our proposal at this stage. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. And "building bridges" has a nice ring about it. It is positive. It is bridging gaps. And i think also putting in the post-wcit environment i think is something actually worthwhile considering. And it has the advantage, it is fairly short and snappy, i think. 
There is a remote participant. Yes, please. 
>>remote intervention: actually, there are several remote participations. Question: for many years mag has called for more financial contributions for business. Has anyone asked business why they don't contribute more? If so, what are their reasons and will the mag consider making changes to make the conference more business friendly? 
If you will allow me, i will read here. 
A comment from kieren. There seems to be very little focus on empowering entities to help define a given that they want to see. There is still no session feedback system for these common practices in the modern world. For example, the igf needs to look inward less and outward more and define greater energy and resources become available. 
Do i have time to read more? 
Sorry. A message from deidre williams. It is an indicater, it is an interesting indicater of the evolution of the igf that having more (indiscernible) to gather the information back into the global meeting taking meeting (indiscernible) as a discussion lasting all year.
>>chair kummer: thank you. Wolfgang kleinwächter, please. 
>>wolfgang kleinwächter: thank you, mr. Chairman. A brief comment to the question of the formats and the themes. I think nothing is written in stone. That means we have some good experiences but the beauty of the igf is that it has a great flexibility. And if the environment is changing, if we are faced with new challenges, we should have the courage to meet these new challenges and to adjust to the new environment. 
So while continuity is important and we have a clear mandate that is important that comes from the tunis agenda, this does not block us to move forward and to be as flexible as possible. 
I want to give you other -- just a very brief feedback from the workshops we had the last three days in this building on the wsis+10 conference. And i myself was involved in three workshops on the principles. And i have heard also in the recent interventions by previous speakers that the issue of principles comes back again and again and again. 
The basis for these three workshops were the outcome from the baku (indiscernible) plenary where we had a long discussion about internet governance principles and we realized that, as parminder has said, numerous organizations doing work on internet governance principles from intergovernmental organizations like oecd or the council of europe or the g8 to civil society organizations like apc or private sector organizations like gni or technical organizations like the istar organizations. We realize there are 25 or more documents which define internet governance principles which was confusing and provides to principle shopping. 
The idea which was discussed in baku was to get a better overview about this and to produce as a first step a compendium which would allow more or less comparative analysis to find out was there consensus on something like universal principles which are supported by all stakeholders, not only by governments, by private sector, by civil society but all together. 
I think the three workshops here confirm that there is really a need an interest. All workshops were fully packed of people. That means it is a big suggest and it can only support what ayesha has proposed here, that the principle issue should be one of the key issues in the forth-coming meeting in bali. Also, ayesha's proposal to form a (indiscernible) or whatever group which prepares this special session makes absolutely sense to get more knowledge which is available beyond (indiscernible). 
And i think this compendium could be produced and form a good background for suggestion in bali so we have better preparation. We start with the discussion before the plenary in bali and if we put this on the table, igf could stimulate the discussion and raise the quality of the outcome then from bali. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. That is one idea that you put forward -- that was put forward, a (indiscernible) of people, that is to an especially end of preparatory process. It will be basically a core group that will prepare a session. That was several people supported that idea, and that is definitely, i think, something we have to look into. Taking it -- broadening the process beyond the mag and make sure the sessions are well-prepared. 
United states? 
>>united states: perfect timing. Thank you, chair. I'm trying to reconcile some of the different points that have been made about the main themes and main sessions. So i'm just trying to perhaps think about a hybrid approach perhaps that captures some of the discussion. 
I was thinking about keeping the existing themes as tracks for the workshop organization, shall we say, but perhaps the main sessions, not plenary sessions but main sessions, could capture a salient topic within one of those themed tracks that reflects the comments here about wanting to be timely and salient. 
And i have made several comments in the past about one of the values of the igf is -- even this morning one of its value is its ability to be timely and capture the issue of the day. So perhaps an emerging issue in each theme for a main session, just a thought to try to tie a couple of those things together. 
I would also like to react a little bit to the conversation about the regional igf discussion about trying to incorporate that more into the global igf. I think that that's, of course, wonderful we have national and regional igfs that take place throughout the year and i do think there is a huge value in tries to capture that content in some way in the global igfs. 
But i'm -- i'm a little -- i'm nervous about losing the integrated geographical diversity throughout the workshops if we have regional -- focused workshops that focus only on a particular region. You know, this is the global igf, the diversity -- the geographic diversity in each of the workshops is a huge value component as well. And so i just -- i wouldn't want to lose that with focusing on regional workshops that might take the ability to get speakers or the topics away from the fully, more integrated discussion. 
I'm certainly open for creative ways to deal with those issues, but it just occurred to me in that discussion. So i wanted to share that thought. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I think bill's proposal, and i may quote him wrongly, but i think it was maybe have one session devoted to the region when they are in the region, not necessarily that there is more than one or so on. We get your point. The overall geographical diversity, i think, is certainly important. 
Robert guerra? 
>>robert guerra: robert guerra with the citizen lab. I just wanted to have a couple of comments on the main sessions, and i think participating in a variety of different types of events that have either smaller or more participation than the igf, it strikes me that, indeed, that a lot of other events have far more interactive dialogues but they also have a different set of actors that are more flexible and allow for that, for example, the divo interactive dialogue, and the smaller event we do in canada as well. But we might want to try to borrow that and i might suggest that for the main sessions, we have a couple of sessions that are preformatted already as discussed. We have an opening. We have a closing. We have an introduction to the igf. 
And then we have a variety of other sessions. I would say that -- i would grow with many of the comments -- agree with many of the comments that three hours is too long and breaking that three hours into two chunks could be useful. And might i suggest that for some of the main sessions, the format of how that session is run be changed in different approaches, be attempted and assessed going forward. 
This is not something new. This was something that was proposed last year at the open consultation at the mag meeting. But i think that we should try to do that. And one type of format that i would suggest is an interactive dialogue where the moderator, the panelist, and the audience have preseated questions or topics a conversation takes place and this would require not just a moderator but a couple of others that would encourage those in the audience. It might be difficult for some actors that aren't familiar with that, but it would create a more another idea would be to try to coordinate, perhaps -- i mean, one of the other comments that was mentioned last year, and as well, earlier this morning is the real need to have practical sessions where key stakeholders, be they business, private sector, civil society, come home with something learned that they can take back, and i would say maybe phasing -- having some sort of workshop, either a pre-event or at the igf itself, and then a main session that gets into the issues around it this is something more in terms of a sequencing and i'm not sure if that's been given much thought in the past but that's a way to be practical. 
I have one other comment, which is in regards to the regional issue that the u.s. Just mentioned and i would go back maybe thinking of the conversation last year. One issue that came up of that is of relevance to the region that could be useful in the global igf that's not been mentioned so far is the issue of ict in disasters. I believe that this is an area that indonesia and many other countries in the region have a great deal of expertise, but other countries around the world do as well. Particularly post-japan. It ties into the science and technology that was mentioned earlier as well, but i think that a session on that, and sharing the experience of the country, and i think that -- and one last thing, which is how to make the sessions, i would say, more hip or more relevant, is not just the work of the mag in formatting the sessions and the workshop proposals. It's also engaging key stakeholders that will be participating in the sessions to promote it on social media. 
So the importance of engaging youth as reporting on sessions and working with the indonesian hosts. From the comments they made earlier and in conversations with them, they are really keen to work with what is being prepared and having people from the country participate generates a bit of a buzz and that would be helpful, so i think that those kind of three or four different comments are helpful for the mag to consider. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Norbert. 
>> thank you, mr. Chairman. Nap trouble the civil society internet governance caucus. It has already been quoted from the recommendations from the working group on internet governance forum improvements, that the preparation process should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered, and i want to quote further from this report that they recommend the results of the debates of these questions with special focus on public policy perspectives and aimed at capacity building, should be stated in the outcome documentation, and furthermore the working group recommends that the outcome documentation should include messages that map out converging and diverging opinions on questions. 
So we, the internet governance caucus consider it's very important of the -- for these recommendations to be implemented and i would suggest that the structure of the main sessions in the sense of the sessions that have interpretation should really reflect that the structure should be chosen so that these outcomes are actually outcomes of those sessions, so that there should be a deliberative process of the community of participants in the igf leading to this outcome, which has already been mentioned that there's a very great body of knowledge on deliberative processes that can be tapped into. We also mentioned some ideas of processes that can be used in our written contribution, but i think it's very important to keep this goal in mind that we have in this recommendation of the working group and structure the work so that this recommendation is actually achieved by the structure of the main sessions that we choose. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Izumi, please. 
>>izumi aizu: thank you, chair. Izumi, member of the mag from the civil society. 
First, i have two or three questions to the secretariat. They're kind of technical. Could we have the breakdown over the years of the participants of baku? Is this somewhere or by region, country, asia, whatever you have attend? 
I think we better sort of discuss based on these figures might be -- of course the fear is baku might be very different from that of indonesia. 
Is there any way of tracking the number of times that one has participated at an igf, as we are having this sixth and seventh and eighth igfs, how many are really new guys and how many are not really new guys and that might be worth to consider, and you have to prepare, perhaps, from next round. 
Another little question is: what is the state of the mag renewal? I'd like to know if any, you know. 
Okay. For the next bali meeting, in particular, i also wouldn't want to overlap with many great suggestions so i will add a new one. 
As i was one of the ad hoc last-minute proposal at mag meeting in baku, which some of them are not too happy because it's last minute, there were no mag meetings prepared at baku, as i recall, so i'd like to have ideally two mag meetings, could be open, could be closed, whatever, we can discuss tomorrow, in the preparation, and also the reflection at the conclusion. Even very short. Not -- sorry? 
>> (speaker is off microphone.) 
>>izumi aizu: i can't hear. 
Okay. Sorry. So when -- i also like to say with un-conferencing, how about vof or kind of white space, very -- as wendy said, how to design serendipity. Just don't favor anything but some space mechanism, physical vote, online voting place so something that emerges can still be done within the framework of the bali meeting, not the next meeting. 
I think also the -- in asia and something that is a very bit... We may encourage their participation and look at how many are here from east asia. Not too many. I'm a little bit concerned about that. That's our homework, perhaps. 
I will stop here. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Some of the questions, you'll find the answer on the igf web site. The participants, the statistics are there. 
I don't think that you have the statistics of how many people have been frequent visitors to the igf, but this is something obviously you would have to ask for at the -- if they cross the right box. And so the mag question, i think the mag renewal is usually done in time for the may meeting, so the proposed names are now, i think, in new york for consideration. 
There are many, many, many people who asked for the floor, and we haven't gone through the list yet, and i beginning to fear that we'll be running out of time. 
We have had now on the main session and many good suggestions but there are also the issues, basically operationally the mag should issue a call for workshops and then we have not really addressed the question on how to operationalize "okay, the mag will be able to discuss that more in depth tomorrow," but it would be good to have opinions from people gathered here. 
As we go through the list of speakers, maybe we can also address the question on the -- i mean, we said at the outset it would be good to have clear initially understood workshop selection criteria. That is also related to the categories of workshop. Do we do away with the categories altogether or do we come up with any suggestion as long as it is internet governance, but we have to think about that. To have a clear answer. 
But let me go further down the list. Next speaker is susan chance from internetnz. 
>> thank you. Susan chalmers, n markus kummer. First i'd like to offer a few words on internet n markus kummer's skirts in organizing a national igf. Second, i'd like to make a handful of suggestions for the 2013 igf. 
(indiscernible) we call it net 2e. Maybe being the (indiscernible) word for meeting. That was schneider by the global igf but both in terms of topics and it differs from the traditional igf format. We're entering our third year and we're still experimenting with the substance and procedure for (saying name), but i think it's important to note that i don't think we'll ever stop experimenting because in doing so, we're always giving ourselves the chance to make (saying name) better for the people who attend. 
And especially since the only constant is change, with the internet and society, it's to have a statistic i can framework that is too rigid is not entirely suitable, so i'd like to offer a suggestion. 
And this echos suggestions of our colleague from eurodig and izumi most recently that a lab, almost like a laboratory space, be created during -- during the igf that features an un-conference format, so when people do come and bring their own ideas and they suggest ideas for a session, so that just requires a handful of organizers to group together ideas that are similar into a session and a very -- a handful of very strong general-purpose moderators. 
Also the social media, i echo the importance of social media, and name animal we use a twitter follow, so that's projecting the twitter follow on the side of a wall (indiscernible) hashtag and engage and that also enables people to be more engaged remotely and using a twitter follow, you can have remote moderators that my colleague my make an intervention on this, but remote moderators who can cultivate a series of really good questions from the hashtag. 
So those -- those are just the thoughts that i'd like to offer today. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: and for the scribes, (saying name) i think my knowledge of maori is h-u-i, correct? Yes. Thank you. Khaled fatall is the next s speaker. 
>> thank you, markus, for the opportunity. I'd like to draw from an observation i just made earlier, and actually it welcomes you being in the chair position as well. It draws from the many years that many of us -- especially colleagues who have been in the early days of the wsis from 2001 onwards -- you may recall back then when we called (indiscernible) turning the global internet into a multilingual internet it was not a popular subject. Early days of igf wgig it started becoming very popular and became very supported by a lot of people who are participating in these events, and this year we will start seeing the fruit of a global multilingual internet. 
It was not a -- an easy road. It was a long road. 
But it takes us back from the -- to the late '90s when many who called instead (indiscernible) empower local communities that go on and teach them english. We've gone a. 
>>elizabeth longworth: way to where we are today, and i think there's something to be celebrated but i think there's something that perhaps is missing on the next phase of what we should everybody focusing on at igf, and perhaps this is a theme that i could propose. 
What is at the heart of what we all are talking about here? At the heart of it is the multistakeholder model. We all believe in it. 
Yesterday fadi chehade of icann, ceo of icann, showed me that there may be some value in believing in this model now, since he took office. 
He -- he made -- in his speech, he addressed the point of how to turn the multistakeholder model into an equal multistakeholder model. 
And i -- i take note that we're starting to see that icann is listening. We've been calling on calling the global internet and the multistakeholder model into a more fair -- equal but also equitable -- space, and just like this morning we looked at a beautiful baby and we all addressed that baby as a stakeholder, and a stakeholder that we all recognize has a right on this internet, we also have a responsibility for those who are about to join the internet. 
So what i would propose as a theme -- and it could be whether we make the tables round, square, long, short, long events, short events, i think it would probably of value at the next igf on how to make the multistakeholder model more equal. It fits also with the words of fadi chehade yesterday, and i think this will go to the heart of serving the local communities and bringing their participation in, because only with their participation can we really make it more equal and more equitable. 
Thank you, mr. Chairman. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Next speaker is marrow ann franklin from the internet rights and principles coalition. Yes, please. 
>> yes. I think many points i want to raise have been said. I just want to endorse the fact that we've talking about a diversity of formats at the same time we're talking about a diversity of themes, so i'm thinking that if we're going to design serendipity and we're going to accommodate inclusion and we're going to put it into practice, then i would like us to think about -- i'm speaking more for myself here -- that the main sessions that we need are in themselves also diverse, so not just diversity of formats between different sorts of sessions and different sorts of workshops, but the main sessions themselves could perhaps reflect the cultural and social context in which this storm is taking place. And by doing so, we ask our indonesian hosts what would work. In new zealand, the h h. 
It's indigenous to the people there and it has its own way of doing things. (indiscernible) really take seriously where the forum will be and have the way the forum is operating reflect that context. 
It's a very, very practically, though, because we're also talking content, if you want the workshop -- the workshop submissions, could we include in those submissions a clear statement of the format that the workshop organizer would like to (indiscernible) workshop in? Do they want it to be a roundtable? Do they want it to be a movement one? Do they want to have a moderator walking around with a microphone? I'd like to invite the workshop instigators to think more creatively about their own formats? That's the first thing. 
Secondly, that the main sessions reflect a diverse and different set of formats. 
And thirdly, that we think of including the local populace quite physically in the proceedings and be a lot more adventurous across the board. 
Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. United kingdom kingdom. Mark carvell. 
>>united kingdom: yes, thank you, chair, elaborated congratulations on your on your appointment as interim chair. Great to see you back. 
I was very much on that point, actually, about managing the process of receiving workshops. I think we're all agreed that it's imperative that we make the next igf one that's easy to navigate and one that's not going to be crowded with too much in the way every overlapping sessions and so onment. 
And we've heard some very good proposals for varying the format. I took part in some of the flash -- one or two of the flash sessions in stockholm at eurodig. I thought that was a great innovative way just to sort of hit on an issue, let's get two or three people together and talk it through, who are wants to be there and it doesn't have to be an extended form -- doesn't have to be, you know, a long extended format. 
And -- but i wanted to come in especially on these -- on the objective, which i got a sense there was a lot of support for in identifying hot pressing issues that this igf should really get into the guts of and produce some options for stakeholders, including policymakers from governments to go away with. 
Some -- a range of options so not a negotiated outcome but a range of options, but i think they're going to need time. 
I've heard, you know, people say we should drop the three-hour format, but i think for something like an issue with which cropped up in dubai, and you touched on this right at the beginning -- spam or ipv4 legacy trading issues -- you're going to need a bit of time for those who are really needing an exploration of the issue to engage with experts and then hear what the possible options are. Ana engagement will produce maybe an enriched set of options and those have to be captured. You're not going to be able to do that in a one and a half hour workshop. 
So some sort of extended workshop variable i think is going to be appropriate, and it could be a matter for some immediate consultation as to what those issues might be, and we're only going to be able to talk about three or four, i guess, in -- within the format of a four-day igf meeting. And then once we've got those identified, those workshop proposals that might, under the old process, have hit on that topic, they would automatically be subsumed within this sort of seminar on the issue. 
So that will help with the management of the bottom-up process. 
And we don't want to lose that vital element of bottom-up proposals for the igf to -- to address. 
So that's going to help on some of the workshop proposals, if they could identify "ah, this is for a roundtable" or "for a flash session." That's going to make it easier for the management of the process to take place. 
So i just wanted to come back to that objective of -- of identifying early on what those hot topics are that need immediate attention that are going to have political impact and also the value of preparing well -- preparing well for those sessions and that may mean getting some materials out there and identifying who -- who could most usefully engage with those stakeholders who really want to find the options that are going to suit. 
And again, i just want to emphasize the -- the desire to make the event easy to navigate. From the government perspective -- i'm coming from the u.k. Government -- there's usually only one policymaker who can make it, and that person has to navigate a very complex program, ordinarily, to make the policymaker -- make it easier for the policymaker, i think, is going to be essential for us. 
On the question of -- and i do really appreciate what google has -- has been saying this year about funding. On that question, our experience in the u.k. Is that it's difficult for companies actually to get the money to fund something that doesn't take decisions so if we are going to produce tangible outputs that are going to have real impact quickly, maybe it will help that process of getting the funding from the business sector. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. And there's clearly, i think i would sense, a broad agreement there's no one-size-fits-all format for all of the sessions; that the sessions -- the format needs to be adapted to the subject matter, and some subject matters may deserve a whole day. That does not necessarily need to be in the same room. It can be obviously be a sequence of different sessions, different workshops, taking up the same subject. 
Jeff brueggeman, from at&t. 
>>jeff brueggeman: thank you very much. I actually want to strongly endorse some of the comments that mark carvell made, and i do think he touched on a very important issue, which is we need to be cognizant of making the igf relevant for those who are not at the meeting or have not attended multiple meetings. And in that sense, i think it's very important to, as we develop a list of topics for the igf, to think about if there are issues that everyone is talking about, even though we may not find them to be the most cutting-edge, it's still important that we address them. 
At the same time, the igf also does play a unique role and has played a unique role in identifying the new trends and the new issues, and so we -- we can do both and we should do both. 
A couple of specific comments. I think the hot list of issues as -- as ayesha has said previously, in our view, given the discussions that are happening globally, needs to take on some of these very practical issues, whether it be internet exchange points, security, local content, economic development, and those types of issues. 
But there also is room for talking about multistakeholder principles, the local and regional perspective, and the link to public disaster recovery and those types of issues could be a very interesting way to approach adding a new flavor to the igf every -- every year that reflects a local location. 
Main session panels, a specific suggestion i would have is i think that's an opportunity to really focus on bringing in new views to the igf, high-level views. 
I liked paul's comments about focusing on newcomers. 
Main sessions really send a message about what is going to be of interest and accessible to someone who may not be as familiar with the detailed substance of some of these issues, and i think we should view that as an opportunity, really, for the main sessions to be for an external audience as well as for those of us who are in the room. 
At the same time, anriette's suggestion about a roundtable, i think, creates an opportunity to create a work stream, so to speak, of workshops that can feed into the roundtable and could lead to an interesting set of output that may include recommendations but also just could include observations and documenting materials and a wide range of things that may be the type of material that can help really provide some more focused substance around a topic. 
And then finally, i -- i like the idea of all the experimentation of formats, which would allow for new thinking and new -- new ways to do it, but in my view, the -- it's hard to -- harder to do that in a main session which, by design, are for a larger audience and may be, as i said, maybe that's an area where we should be thinking how to make it more interesting and relevant for a broader audience, rather than experimenting with the format in that case. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Nurani nimpuno, next speaker. 
>>nurani nimpuno: thank you, markus. In your. I'm going to try to be brave because that was the encouragement i got from markus, so -- but some other people were brave before me, so first of all, if we're talking about an evolving igf, like a few people have pointed out, the environment is changing, so let the main themes evolve with it. Let's try to capture the issue of the day and respond to recent events. Like we've tried to, in the past, but i find that (indiscernible) acted as guidance, they might be holds us back now. So events like the arab spring, (saying name), wcit, or natural disasters, i think in the past igfs we've failed to respond to these issues simply because we're too tied to the format we have. 
I think we should do more to find themes among regional igfs before we -- we set the program for the global igf to see if there are themes that we can see in several of the regional igfs. 
And we can let that feed into the global igfs. 
One thing we discussed briefly -- i think it was anriette who brought it up on the mag list -- was to try to work in a truly bottom-up way instead of having the mag set themes, actually call for workshop proposals like eurodig does and see if we can find common themes among that. 
That allows people to -- to propose workshops and start organizing workshops around issues that they find important, and for us to capture those. 
I realize that we now have a program to plan, so it might not be the right time to do it, but i think it's something we should -- i think it's something we should seriously consider. 
I like the idea of this open-end preparatory process, just start with the discussion already before bali, produce background material which also informs the discussions at the igf meetings, and this is where i might be -- be -- i'm not sure if it's brave or -- or nuts, but simply finding new ways of allowing people to feed into the igf program. 
So at the risk of a buzzword bingo here, basically allowing people to send in questions through social media. If you have a youtube channel, people can create little videos and say "i want an answer to this question," twitter and tweet-ups -- i'm not sure if you're aware of what that is, but basically finding -- letting people ask questions either during like a chat session on twitter or -- or over a longer period before leading up to the igf, you have someone capture those questions and let that integrate into the meetings. Have people post things on facebook. And then having moderators who capture those things before the meeting and try to -- to find ways of answering them.i think it is easy to fall into traditional formats, but i think there are a lot of different formats we can explore. The (indiscernible) conference is an exciting format. I realize it is something that a lot of people may be uncomfortable with, but it allows for a lot more interaction. In the technical community they have something called lightning talks where people get up and give five-minute talks on an issue, it might be an experience they have or a particular bug fix or anything like that. And it allows people to interact in a more lively way, so to speak, and it also allows a lot more people to come -- to come to the microphone. 
Izumi also raised the idea of bofs. It is called birds of feather. If there is an issue you might not want to necessarily full a whole session on or workshop on, but you have some ideas you want to thrash out, you formalize a birds of a feather session. That birds of a feather session might then grow into something else but it allows people to organize things in a less sort of bureaucratic way. 
Oh, yes. And then i would also like to pick up on what parminder said. Think this is a very important point. We need to expand from the dispute processers of this inside community. I think having seen the igf over the last few years, we have a tendency to go back to the same speakers. And i think we need to push ourselves outside the comfort zone. And maybe instead of just having open consultations or mag meetings where we brainstorm speakers, to actually task mag members to go out and find new speakers. 
I think we've become a little bit lazy there. 
I wasn't actually aware of the tradition of having mag members refrain from being on panels, but i think that's good to be reminded of. 
And then, finally, i think one issue that comes up almost every year is the issue of limiting the number of workshops. And, again, i'm very conscious of the fact that some people get funding based on the fact that they are an approved speaker. 
But i think if we want to -- if we want the igf to evolve and to be a bit more focused, i think we need to be a little bit braver in how we value the workshops. Both in terms of the actual evaluation but then the follow-up. 
I think what we've seen in past years is that even when the mag has actually done a really good job at evaluating workshops, it is -- and it is pretty much up to the organizer of those workshops how they want to respond to that evaluation. Some have done a fantastic job and really listened and improved gender balance or geographic diversity, et cetera. 
And in some cases, we simply get the response that, oh, well, and they go ahead with the workshop without having the gender balance or the geographical diversity, et cetera. 
So i think we need to as the mag as well, we need to be braver and follow up. And if workshops simply don't meet those minimal standards, to be a bit tougher on that. 
Then the very last point i want to make is about feedback. I think if we want to continue improving the igf, we need to be better at seeking feedback from the community. I think these open calls where people submit documents, they need -- we need to continue with that, but we might need to find simpler ways for people to provide feedback. Seek feedback even through simple feedback forms at the meeting, have possibly confession booths where people can go and record a message about the feedback -- about the igf they've just attended and to really capture people who have attended an igf and get their feedback immediately at the meeting because those people will not necessarily go back and submit a paper in february. Thank you. I'm sorry for taking so long. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. 
Lucinda fell is the next speaker. 
>> lucinda fell: for the transcript, i'm a member of the mag but i will speak on behalf of the igf project. And thank you, mr. Chair, for your reference earlier on about our youth workshop in baku. I think it is really exciting that several people have mentioned a potential youth plenary or youth main session, whatever the wording is. But i wanted to clarify what our aim is or has been in the past four years in bringing young people to the igf. 
And we have seen them not as a subgroup or as a theme but rather we wanted them to engage where they can in the main sessions. Their engagement has been more in terms of behavior, i admit, rather the technical side of things only because i have been briefing them. But that's also where their experience lies. 
And on the note of their experience, i've spoken at length before at other igfs about the challenge of including young people, particularly regarding the accessibility of the language we use and the jargon at the igf. Someone was pointing, unfortunately i can't remember who, spoke about the effective participation of all stakeholders in internet governance. And that's really what we're working for with young people. 
And i just wanted to clarify that. It is great to have them involved, but we want them involved as stakeholders in the main discussions, not in a separate discussion. 
I also want to make a comment on getting speakers outside of the mag community involved in panels. And from my perspective, it is a massive challenge finding funding to get young people on the panel. And i think that new speakers and civil society people are going to need funding in order to get to the igf, particularly if they're new and they haven't been before. And that's a particular challenge we face on a yearly basis. 
I have one final comment on workshops. And that was based on what people have been saying about meetings, about diversity and representation in workshops. I think that's a very important principle. But i think we need to be flexible about that. I think particularly for some of the workshops that i was involved in looking at last year, like some of the language-based ones, if they are looking at a specific thing like a specific language from a specific carrier, they're not going to be able to achieve geographical diversity in that workshop. And i think we need a better context when deciding. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. India, tulika, please. 
>>india: thank you, chair. I heard (indiscernible) and i am just going to recommend -- i mean, play with the word game "brave" and that is to say is there a possibility of us discussing on the evolution of the mag role? I mean, are we really going to evolve in what we do and how we do as mag in terms of trying to see if we could bring out the metrics of earlier evaluation of proposals and also in terms of the coverage -- or the depth of coverage of a particular issue in the past seven igf meetings that have been held. Would it be too much to ask or too little for the mag? Or is there a possibility at all? 
I was wondering if there's -- as a mag member, are we doing something differently? If not more or less? So just -- this is the "brave" that i'm trying to do. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for being brave. Something i think the mag can also address at tomorrow's meeting. 
Ananeves, please. You have been very patient. 
>>portugal: thank you, i asked for the floor like three hours ago. 
[ laughter ] 
Okay. Let me just see what i wanted to say. So i have seven comments basically. 
The first one is to the chest of the proposals put forward by the colleagues, mainly by icc/basis, that seem very timely and appropriate. But such proposals will involve a lot of work from all mag members. 
Two, the main sessions cannot run at the same time as the workshops. They are not in competition. So that is not the purpose of main sessions and the workshops, i think. 
Number three, we have to better assess what we want from each main session to make them more interested as was already underlined by bill drake. 
Number four, we should prevent workshops with overlapping topics. That happened a lot in baku. 
The fifth i have here is to get the right balance in each panel regarding stakeholder group, gender, geographic diversity and age. 
The sixth is to limit the number of times that one individual speaks on main sessions and workshop panels, to oblige us to find new speakers. So here mag members should have no role. 
Finally, the number of workshops should be limited but that will depend on the proposals that will be received a clear understood call due to the transparency and equal footing factors. Nevertheless, there should be a maximum number of proposals allowed by an entity. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. One comment -- or one proposal, if i understand it correct, there should be no workshops in parallel with main sessions. But then it is a very limited number of workshops. 
>> (speaker off microphone). 
>>chair kummer: sorry? Well, i mean, unless you limit the number of main sessions. The question is then again the question of interpretation. If you have interpretation for the first two days, okay, that's a possibility. But then we will not have interpretation, for instance, for the closing session. We cannot have interpreters sitting around doing nothing. The u.n. Will not allow for that. That's a clear fact. 
And basically it's a question of not utilizing available resources. That will be cut for the next -- for the following meeting. There are various elements to this we have to consider. 
Unless you want to severely restrict the number of workshops or having them between 7:00 and 10:00 in the morning and between 6:00 and 9:00 in the evening and during lunchtime, which is something we said we don't want to either because we want participants to be able to interact, that would severely limit the possibility. I mean, this is just something we have to think through how we want to handle it. 
As i think wolfgang said, nothing is cast in stone and written here forever. But we have to think of the consequences. 
Also, i think that was made by several speakers to limit the number of workshops one single institution can propose. But there again, it is one thing if an individual comes up with seven workshops, and we've had that in the past. It is another thing if an institution comes up that has a breadth of expertise be that within its limits or international organization, we know they have done successful workshops in the past and we know they can handle it and manage it, i think we should also maybe be a little bit more flexible. 
Yes, i think single institutions should not be too greedy and cover the whole space, but i think we should not be too rigid. 
I still have a long list and i see new names going up. I think it is a good discussion. I'm sure we will not be able to come to closure today as there are many, i think, issues. But be listening to comments and it will be up to the mag then tomorrow to synthesize this discussion. 
Ellen strickland, you have been patient. Please. 
>> ellen strickland. I will speak on behalf the pacific islands, igf and pacific islands chapter of isoc. I wanted to support the things that have been said about the involvement of regional and national igfs initiatives. In part, what the relationship to the igf but also as a step towards sort of building and evolving that open multistakeholder sort of forum with the diversity of speakers and perspectives and really moving from the bottom-up. 
And towards that, i wanted to make an intervention about remote participation and online igf processes, is really key to this decision, and to acknowledge the remote participation work that the igf does. 
Personally, i have attended two igfs but haven't been to one in person and it is an amazing experience as a remote participant with many options and training, audio, video translation, transcript acknowledging low bandwidth requirements. And that really i hope we can build on these strengths and look at the layers of remote participation as you look at the program good to go forward. 
So participating is listening but also asking questions for speakers but also to think about the sessions as a whole. I was very impressed with a session this week at the unesco meeting run by apnic where there was a panel in paris a panel in singapore who interacted with each other and found that sort of innovation something we might strive for, for sort of different remote elements. 
Recognizing internet connective on-site is very important, and i know that has been acknowledged in the report of the working group, and that has technical and sort of financial implications, but i hope that the search for speakers and the workshop process can create space in the program and logistically for remote presence. So ebb engagement offices and the meet space engagement when we get together at the igf , towards that to support an open sort of preparatory process online. As well as having access to questions prior. And that would include not just the remote participation platforms which are amazing, but also e-mail, social media. I absolutely support nurani with her ideas for innovation online, using video options that are both realtime and delayed, acknowledging that that sort of interaction. So, thank you. 
And i would like to close by advocating by the remote participants of this session have been queuing for questions invisibly for us in this room and thank the chair for including them as much as possible. 
>>chair kummer: are there remote participants queuing? Okay. 
>>remote intervention: another comment from (indiscernible). There are 56 members of the mag. I'm assuming of the igf pays their attendance cost. If the mag is serious about doing its job, it should commit to its members producing workshop reports rather than continuing to rely on others when they don't do it for them and then complain when they don't. 
From ginger paque, there is do not need to be a one size fits all prescription for sessions. Perhaps more flexiblity for length and format will allow for adaptation. Workshop organizers should be encouraged to use their best own format. 
And another comment from kieren, having interpreters define the format of the meeting is an outdated u.n. Mind-set. Interpreters are far more flexible these days. The mag should review whether this assumption still holds true if they find that it does, they should review it again. And also (indiscernible), has anyone actually asked businesses why they aren't contributing financially? Which would appear to be a logical and obvious step. 
>>chair kummer: okay. Thank you. Well, in answer to kieren, no, the mag members don't get paid. I mean, some mag members from developing countries are funded by the u.n. But the funds are not sufficient to pay for all of them. And it would not pay for mag members who are not from developing countries, again, according to u.n. Rules. 
Now, the interpreters don't define the structure of the session. It is just the slots they work. But within these slots, we can do what we want. 
There is also, i think, a limit to human attention span. I think after three hours of session, most people feel ready for having a coffee and stretching their legs. We will soon be reaching this stage in this room in this discussion. 
[ laughter ] 
It is a very intense discussion, very interesting discussion. But i'm sure we would not like this discussion to carry on for another three or four hours. 
And, yes, hello was it to ginger, good to have friends online remotely. Yes, i think we agree there is no one size fits all format. 
Bertrand is on the list and martin boyle, peter majors, zahid jamil, marilyn, patrik. 
Okay, bertrand? 
>>bertrand de la chapelle: thank you. Supporting a few suggestions, the birds of a feather just reserving spaces, another good practice that can be picked from academic meetings is the notion of poster session, having on the side of the village a space where you have just one panel and people can put a poster and having a session that is dedicated where there are only three-minute slots or four-minute slots for presentations of people who want to make a specific point. There may be a selection process for who is in poster session but very short things. 
The other element i was fortunately enough to be the moderator of the joint session between the apnic and unesco yesterday, and, indeed, it dawned on me how interesting it would be to test that kind of thing in the igf format for one or two sessions, to have this -- to have a situation where it is actually the people in the igf who are the remote participants or the joint participants in something where some speakers are somewhere else. 
It is technically challenging because there is a question of bandwidth and so on. It is not to be spread. But i think it is deserve to be tested for at least one or two sessions in a format to be explored. 
Now, one thing i want to -- two final things i want to highlight. One is that we have now the pattern of the last four or five years. To get the list of workshops that have been accepted in the last years, you put them all together and cluster them by themes. You have large clusters, smaller clusters. There are issues about privacy. You had a whole range of workshops. Choose by copyright, you have a whole range. Freedom of expression, likewise. 
I think this deserves to be treated as sort of a thread and it could be the responsibility of the mag to identify the five, six or seven themes that have been addressed on a regular basis and where the problem of proliferation of workshops has been a reality. 
One goal this year may be to reach out to the actors who have organized that kind of workshop in the past and help them and encourage them to get in sort of contact group around us to see whether in the course of the week there can be a thread with several workshops dealing with the different aspects. 
If i take just an illustration on privacy, there are issues regarding access to privacy data by law enforcement but also the rules that the platforms or the cross-border platforms use for privacy. Where also new technologies like geo location, that brings new issues. 
Having clusters of those issues and making those as threads during the week would facilitate people following the different dimensions. 
Now, the last point is in that respect, we have an understanding today of the main session as being a sort of more important session and the workshops are important. But the characteristic of the main session is that they have today three hours. They don't overlap. They are in a very large room. And they have translation. Sorry, interpretation. I always make the mistake. 
[ laughter ] 
There is nothing that prevents us from having, as i was suggesting earlier, at the end of the week sessions that would be one hour a half that would be in parallel if you have one on privacy doing the wrapup from the discussions during the week, one on freedom of expression doing the wrapup of the different workshops, and another one -- maybe only one will have interpretation. But the format of roundtables wrapping up around the same table, the people who have organized the different workshops in the thread, not reporting but just having the discussion with the different dimensions, has two benefits. One, it allows people also when they look at the video afterwards to have a short summary of what has been done during the week on this topic. 
And, second, it produces real interaction among the different dimensions of the issue. And it is the responsibility, i hope, of the mag to do this clustering and to anchor proposals for a limited number of workshops on, for instance, the privacy thread and identify how it can be combined to work correctly. 
As a joke, the igf is almost a combination between an u.n. Conference an un-conference. So the combination of the very unorganized and the very organized (speaking in french). 
>>chair kummer: and your joke i think is very relevant. We should not lose sight of the fact that we also want to attract governments. And governments may feel less comfortable in a bof setting than in a traditional conference setting. That doesn't mean we should not experiment. 
>>bertrand de la chapelle: do you think a lot of civil society civil society were feeling comfortable in the setting? 
>>chair kummer: we know that. It was clearly a learning process for everybody. But we should not lose sight of the fact that we lose one important stakeholder group and we have -- we actually ask a lot from governments to come into this extremely informal setting. Many of them are very new. It is very uncomfortable. And we see that also in the internet institutions and open microphone session is not something governments engage in naturally. But they are learning. 
[ laughter ] 
>> (speaker off microphone). 
>>chair kummer: right. Martin, you've been waiting. 
>>nominet: thank you, chair. Martin boyle from nominet. From listening to the various -- and i think quite useful contributions talking about workshops, it comes very clearly that one size does not fit all. And i think we do need to perhaps be rather more flexible in the way we identify workshops and how long they're allocated against what it is they're doing and how they are then structured. 
And it was the u.k. Earlier that talked about the need to have enough space to bottom out the issue to get down into the heart of the issue and come up with sensible conclusions. That seems to me to be really important that there is enough space for people to discuss to come out with the conclusions at the end of the day and for everybody to feel that they are going away with some quite useful -- quite useful outputs. 
It will also, i think, make it easier if people are deciding whether to come to bali or not, if they can look and see that there are quite clear areas of activity and interest to them. 
So just making sure that that idea doesn't get lost. 
However, the bit i would like to get to is that when we've looked at workshops before, we've looked at panelists and we've looked at the structure of the workshop in that light. 
We've issued suggestions that people should make sure that workshops are more interactive, which i think is vitally important. But, nevertheless, the focus is on the panel. 
Kieren in his intervention remotely quite a long, long time ago did say something about the need to consider the interest of the audience. And i wonder whether that is something that could be introduced into the workshop proposals. 
Who do you think this workshop is aimed at? What are the questions that you're going to be trying to address in this workshop? Because then the next question is how are you going to get them to attend? So the question might actually have an answer, we want to get the policymakers in government, we want to get the regulators, we want to get a collection of different people. But somehow or another, you've got to reach out and find these people who are not currently attending igf meetings and find ways of inviting them because they feel they need to have an invitation to come to the igf. It is just a thought. But looking at it from the customer rather than the supply side might actually be quite 
>>chair kummer: thank you. But i did notice that in the past few years, there's also been an evolution of workshops, that some -- and that participated in some of them that are more in a roundtable format, much more participatory in a structure, and i think on the whole, that worked rather well. That, you know, workshop organizers -- and that was in response to some of the suggestions -- "no, we would rather have a roundtable format and the room set up in a roundtable format rather than the classical podium facing the participants." But thank you for that. 
(saying name), please. You've been very patient. 
>> thank you, chair. My name is (saying name). I'm from civil society group. I'm working for chinese academy of sciences. 
Many things that i wanted to say have already been discussed, so i won't repeat, but i would like to discuss three things. One is that developing countries involved in this igf, like last year, i also talk about this in geneva. To give you an example, like last year -- last year in the access and diversity group, we discussed one proposal from china. That's the only workshop -- only chinese, one person, proposed a proposal, but it was almost refused because it's -- the workshop only chinese and only male. 
[ laughter ] 
So it's not multistakeholder. 
But to think for this workshop organizer, he doesn't know some -- many people in developed countries, and if he -- and so for him, it's also difficult. Luckily in the end, i think it's combined with another workshop so i was told the workshop was welcomed. 
So i think one part is for those from developing countries, it may be difficult for them to have such a -- such a multistakeholder principle, and also they are thinking and the problem they are facing may not be the same as developed countries. 
So on the other hand, for some workshop organizers from developed countries, maybe they also want to have a multistakeholder original balance, but they may not know some people from developing countries. So my suggestion is, if it's possible to have a database that have some potential participants, potential speakers that -- suggested by either developing countries or developed countries, so that those organizers or proposal makers could choose some people from there. 
This is one thing. 
Anyway, i think for developing countries participate in igf, it's not just because of money or language. There are some other things to consider. 
Another thing is about newcomers. Being a new mag member for about one year, i still feel lost. 
[ laughter ] 
Not just because of asian people are shy, but i don't really know how to -- how to involve in this, partly because of the format is quite serious, and i have to be very careful what i say. 
And another thing is i don't really know -- it seems old mag members are like family. You know each other. But when you're newcomers, i don't really know. 
I notice there's a short bios on the mag web site, you can see each one who is him or her, but my suggestion is very simple. Maybe you could have a photo for each person. That's -- i can remind "oh, that's him" or "that's her." That may be easier. But for newcomers, i think it's easier to participate in this family. 
And if i'm wrong, please correct me. I think probably it's better if there's a -- there will be a short meeting before -- a short meeting for newcomers before the mag meeting so it's a short introduction and (indiscernible) so let newcomers feel more friendly in this family. 
And the third one is because of, as i said, this difficulty for developing countries or maybe -- i don't represent developing countries. Only china. I know china. But for that reason, maybe i think i support that gentleman's suggestion. Maybe we need some regional or national let's say panel or roundtable about this regional thing or this country thing. 
There may not be an outcome, but could be background information to discuss. Thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: well, thank you very much, and welcome to the family. I mean, these are very important remarks and i think your suggestion is a very basic one. To have a welcoming session for the new members so that when we have the next meeting in may, the mag will be renewed and i'm sure chengetai is taking notes. We will take that on board. 
Maybe the day before or so, a half day, two-hour session, but i think it is a very valid point and chengetai's got a shiny new camera so we'll go around and take pictures and then put up the pictures on the web site. It is a very basic suggestion but i can see also its usefulness to help people navigate the complexities of social interaction with the mag family. And, yes, there is a group of people who have been in this business for 10 years, by now, more or less, and -- but we certainly don't want to give the impression that it's a closed shop. No. I think new faces are -- now, now, new faces are more than welcome. We have to include them into the family. 
Peter major, please? 
>>peter major: thank you, markus. I'm peter major, member of the mag, from hungary. In fact, i'm also a new mag member and i completely agree with the remarks from my chinese colleague that orientation would be very welcome. 
What i wanted to -- the reason i wanted to take the floor is that we are after the (indiscernible) meeting in the unesco, and we all know that this is a process which will lead to the final evaluation of the first years of the wsis, including the igf itself, and i'm sure that in this room all of us are here because we -- we love igf. 
It's a part of our life. It's a part of our culture. We may have different approaches, but one thing we share, i'm sure that we all love it. 
And we want to maintain it. 
So i think we are just one year before a kind of critical year in which we had already in 2009. This is the extension of the igf. And in the last resolution of the u.n., There was a call from the u.n. General assembly to -- for the secretary-general to report on the implementation of the recommendations of the cstd working group on the improvements. 
So probably we couldn't have done anything before, just gave some thoughts to it, but now there is a clear mandate that we should be doing something, and i could hear from the floor different interventions on this subject. 
And the time is very limited. The process itself -- and no that i am going to be -- to sound very u.n.-Like but the process is the following: there will be a report submitted to the cstd in its session in june, and there will be a draft resolution about it which will be passed to the ecosoc and to the u.n. General assembly and this will be a part of the report of the secretary-general. 
So altogether, we have about three months to go to be proactive, and i heard already calls for setting up some kind of working group within the mag, and i know that we do it on a voluntary basis. No that we are not paid for it. 
But i think it's -- it's a kind of emotional thing. We should do it. 
So to be proactive, i would like to suggest an overarching theme for the next igf. That is, the upcoming one. That is "igf for the future." I think it's very simple and it includes everything we want to include in it. It may be about cooperation, may be about rights, growth, principles, improvements, empowerment, anything. 
So as for the details, i could tell that main sessions are extremely long and i understand that the -- there are limitations concerning interpretations, so i would suggest to go back to some of the practices we had in sharm el sheikh when we split the main sessions into two, and i also remember very good practices when we didn't have so many panelists on the panel, but we had facilitators and moderators and bertrand was one of the best doing it, and he was down on the floor, i think it was in nairobi. 
So probably we can -- we can go back to some good practices and we can learn from our experiences as well. 
We should also limit, i think, the workshops to 60 minutes. I fully realize that gender equality, balanced geographical -- geographic balance is extremely important, and i'm all for it, but sometimes it doesn't work. 
So probably eventually we should concentrate on the quality of the workshops as well. And it means also what has already been said, that eventually the feedback should be also after the workshop itself immediately, so it will be a part of the workshop. 
There was some remark about mag members being on panels and being in workshops. Yes, i -- i have to tell you that i was on two main panels and about 40 workshops in baku. It was terrible. It was a terrible experience. 
First of all, we were 11 on that panel, which to my mind is unmanageable. You cannot manage it. You cannot engage in conversation with the floor, and that is the main purpose of the main -- of the main session: to have the audience involved. 
And basically you concentrated on your issues and you couldn't really listen to whatever the other was saying, so probably the number of panelists should be reduced. 
And as a last point, what i think is we may start organizing the afterbali igf during the bali igf itself. 
So this is a kind of practice? One of the international organizations i'm familiar with is something -- a usual thing. They start organizing the next conference during the actual conference itself. So probably these were the points i wanted to make. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you for that. 
I noted one very concrete proposal. That is, to limit the workshops to 60 minutes instead of 90 minutes, i think in the past. 
So this is definitely something i think we can discuss. You would also gain more slots, might be easier for scheduling. 
Otherwise, there were many points. 
Just one reaction to the implementation of the reports. I think that seems to be slightly different interpretations. Also, i cannot see how we can implement the report before the next meeting actually takes place. Just on a very, you know, proof-of-the-pudding is in the eating, and the bali meeting will show whether the report has been implemented. I fail to understand how we can be assessed whether the report has been implemented. 
I wonder, slava, whether you would like to comment on the report. Presumably you will be involved in preparing the secretary-general's report on that. Undesa undesa okay. No, i don't have an interpretation, just only following the united nations resolution, which was adopted in december this year by the ga, so that the resolution is to acknowledge the working group report and ask the secretary-general to prepare the report on the implementation of their recommendations. 
However, the resolution did not specify specifically the period of time when this report is going to be prepared, and so as i understand during the discussion of the member states, although they don't really feel that report to be urgently prepared on the implementation, they feel that the igf community needs time to -- you know, digest their recommendations and to come up with a respective plan of implementation. 
I believe so that we are going to cross all the discussion and the proposals of the implementation mechanisms and the action to be taken is very welcome, and definitely the mag members are expected to contribute, but in terms of rushing to have the report are ready by ecosome, this is not what the time frame established or mentioned in the ga resolution. 
>>chair kummer: you would like to react? Yes, please, peter. Major image yes. Thank you. Well, i think we have already started the implementation. This meeting already has started it. So what i meant is there should be a report about some results we are doing, and probably the -- the meeting itself and the following steps we are going to take during the mag meeting and eventually in the may meeting will be included as well. 
Probably we are going to shape the -- the next igf -- that is, the bali igf -- itself based on these recommendations, partially taking into account, but we should keep that in mind that this will be reported from the cstd to ecosoc and from ecosoc, it will be included in the secretary-general's report. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: yeah. I think there's broad agreement on that, i think. It's just a question of the sequencing here. 
Now, we really are coming to a hard -- towards a hard stop. There are still a few speakers. Cede jamil, marilyn cade, patrick ryan, united states, and icc/basis and switzerland. 
Okay. Is a heed, please. 
>>zahid jamil: thank you, chair. This is for -- i'm a mag member from pakistan, and just i know kieren is listening. Kieren, if i can get my two to three years of support to the mag by funding myself back, that would be great. If actually mag members are being funded. I know that for a fact that as a developing country person, even, that hasn't happened, so absolutely, mag members are putting volunteer and their own funding into it. 
I speak as a small developing country business, and, you know, these are just sort of reactions from -- from baku. 
It was very difficult for us to hear each other in the rooms because you had voices that you could hear from the next -- the workshops in the next rooms, and i think that is something we should try and make sure that there is a -- that that doesn't happen. 
I think that really interfered with a lot of the stuff. 
Also, there was this problem with the headsets where you couldn't take it out of a room unless you gave your id card and i think that was something that created a lot of challenges to some of the participants. 
I would like to also recognize the remarks made by guo on china. I think his observations on how we can assess developing country applicants, you know, i don't think we should necessarily give pictures, maybe there should be symbols. We should allow that kind of privacy on who the mag member is, but i think the idea of giving some kind of guidance to them, and especially the concept of maybe a mag mixer. You know, a day before the mag meeting itself or things of that nature, for new participants, would be actually very, very helpful. 
Somebody also mentioned about roundtable formats. I completely support that. And lightning rounds, i think as well. The thing about the feedback last year, we had made -- i had made a proposal that we should have tweet -- tweeting on the web site available or at least in the room, and i think that was a challenge with cost and money, et cetera, so maybe some of our friends here from.nz or histories who mentioned that can tell us how we can implement that on the mag web site or maybe we can do that while we're there. I think that's an excellent idea. 
What it also does is allows you to judge what the participation and the interest of the workshop was, depending on the kind and the number of tweets you're getting with respect to that particular workshop. 
The other idea could be, with -- you know, finding out whether the workshop was successful -- because you're never goings to get evaluation sheets back or monica surveys or anything like that back. The best way to do is is in my -- my thoughts is when somebody leaves the room, they just mark a chart before they go as to what they thought the interest level of a -- of a workshop was, or to have sheets filled out. 
The reason i think that mag members had to be on panelists -- i think this was something that was mentioned -- i think the reason was that a lot of the speakers actually decided not to come, since a lot of mag members had to actually fill in certain slots, so that was a problem. And that brings me to the participation money issue. 
You know, you can't have new speakers, you can't do all these things, unless you have money, and in order to have money, you know, you need to find the sponsors and i am glad that google mentioned something this morning that, you know, they brought up the sort of -- in a sense, the elephant in the room. You know, in order to reach out -- i mean, google does reach out to developing countries in asia and the middle east, so that's wonderful, but i think we also need to look at the asian countries who are beneficiaries of the internet age to see whether they can also help, and i think china and india can take the lead in that, to support, and where appropriate, increase the support to the -- to basically the igf, and that would be lovely. 
Just one last comment on some -- some mentions of equinet that i heard. 
Equitable, equal, that's interesting for me, as long as it's a leveling concept. If this is going to turn into a debate of vlogging the cir horse again and again and again, which hasn't paid any dividends to developing country users, you know, the syrian blogger is not helped by that. The (indiscernible) can't access youtube, is not prepared by that, and so i think if it means, you know, for instance, that everybody should have equal access to the same internet equally and equitably, then that's a different matter. These are just my thoughts. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Marilyn cade. 
>>marilyn cade: thank you. I wanted to open my comments by thanking our colleague from china for calling for something that will assist all of us, i think, in becoming better acquainted with the mag members. It is really -- would be a great asset, but i suggest that instead of chengetai taking the pictures, the mag members submit the pictures, so we can lower the burden on our favorite secretariat. 
I do want to say a couple of words about the idea of trying to decide now, and maybe prematurely, how many workshops and what format. 
We went through a discussion about some vitally interesting themes and ideas. The igf, perhaps we would look at principles and maybe look at a compendium of principles and look differently at things. And i think we'll get some ideas further tomorrow but we'll also get ideas from stakeholders who submit workshop proposals and feedback about what the priorities ought to be. 
I -- i am concerned, and speak at every one of these meetings, that if we too dramatically limit the number of workshops, we limit the opportunity for participation. 
I helped to support a group of 30 (saying name) women who not only came together for the first time on the edge of the igf, but came to the igf for the first time. 
They would never have taken the step of speaking in a main session, but this a small workshop felt comfortable sharing their personal experiences. 
So i just want to -- want us to remain very flexible on this. 
I too really appreciate the words that patrick ryan raised earlier about the fact that we must mutually support this activity, both financially and with our work and our commitment, and in addition to continuing to join others from the business community and the present donors, to help to expand, i also want to propose an idea for some of our government colleagues who are here, and perhaps some of the ngos who are here. 
I think the more we can broaden the awareness about the igf in multiple ministries and multiple parts of the governments, where perhaps e-government and e-health and other kinds of uses of icts are underway, that that will also help us to attract additional attendance and perhaps even awareness from other governments, and having the meeting, the wsis+10 here at unesco i think was fantastic for all of us to remind us that content and culture and information access are vitally important, and i do hope to see some of those themes beginning to emerge as well. 
I am not a mag member. I might describe myself as an internet governance forum junky, since i come to all the meetings. But i was also a part of the cstd working group on improvements, and i wanted to just make a follow-up comment. 
I think, in fact, many of the aspects in the report, we can begin or already have begun to implement, and i do hope that we will begin to capture that, and also to identify if there are any areas -- and i think there are -- where members of the community and the mag can play a role in supporting implementation. That's fantastic. But i think we must recognize that driving the implementation rests with our secretariat, and we need to be sure we're supporting and not just providing too many cooks. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. I have -- i think we have to close our list of speakers. We have less than 20 minutes left, and i have patrick ryan, united states, yieks, switzerland, carolina, yuliya, and andrey are the speakers i have on my list, so that makes one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, so if you can keep your remarks to three limits -- three minutes, that will be pacific. Patrick, please. 
>> thank you. I want to first start out by piling on to the -- to the comments of our chinese delegate, and welcoming him to the mag and to the eventsome. 
I can tell you as a relative newcomer myself, this is an incredibly complicated environment. Lots of intelligent people here that are very nice but very intimidating. 
[ laughter ] 
So it's great to have you here. Your perspective is really important and we should definitely think about making a page out of the icann book, which does a very good job of doing some preparatory welcoming and educational conferences. This is a wonderful idea. 
Secondly, the comment that you made, markus, about interpretation really was -- was insightful and eye opening to me and it's something that i think we should think very hard about. Interpretation is crucial for the work that we do, and it's also a boundary condition. For many of the -- for many of the things that we're doing in ways that it perhaps should not be. 
So for example, 20 years ago at this -- at the university that i studied at where there were a lot of people that sort of well-known for interpretation and language studies, a lot of my colleagues that were students, you know, worked at night for at&t language line services, proving that it's very possible to have interpretation over telephone lines. 
I can imagine that we can do a lot better now today with the internet. I'm not suggesting that we not send our interpreters to bali. We definitely need them there. But in some sort of a combination of -- of on-site versus -- you know, with -- with maybe some remote technology, i think we can be a lot smarter about it, and getting to my favorite topic here about funding, we can also look at this as a -- as a line item in our budget as we need to start doing and be smart business people about this. 
At the wcit, this was also an important boundary condition and many of us that speak other languages found ourselves in positions where we were translating because of the availability of translators was just un- -- was just gone, and that's unfortunate because it limits conversations that otherwise should be taking place. 
So let's think about this, i think, smart with using technology and other alternative ways of augmenting the ability to bring languages to -- and termination to the -- to the event. 
And then finally on the comment about workshop length, i can tell you that 60 minutes is a good length, but if you limit the entire workshop to 60 minutes i'm afraid you're going to have a situation where you're virtually guaranteed to have very large panels and panelists like me who love to hear themselves talk and are going to guarantee to fill up that time and exceed it, and make it such that there are no opportunities for -- for participants to speak. But you could have a hard rule that limits the panelists' participation to a certain amount of time, like say, you know, 45 minutes or 60 minutes and force the room to participate during that other period of time. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: a brief comment. It may be more complicated than you think about interpretation. 
[ laughter ] 
>>chair kummer: united states. 
>>united states: thank you, chair. I'm not often too pragmatic, so thank you for the opportunity to make a suggestion that might just be. 
As we've been listening to the comments made about the -- you know, sort of the complicated process this is and especially for newcomers who might not know how to do workshop proposals or get speakers and things like that, i was wondering if it would be worth considering taking a page from other conferences. The igf is different than many other conferences, and thank goodness for that, but something that other conferences do do is a "how to do a workshop proposal" webcast or, you know, webinar type of thing in advance of the deadline for workshop proposals, so that might be something to think about in this context, because it is kind of -- you know, if you haven't done it before, it's probably very complicated. 
So i offer that for consideration and for somebody to think about how to fund. 
[ laughter ] 
Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: >>chair kummer: thank you. I think that's a doable proposal. 
Icc/basis? 
>>icc-basis: thank you, ayesha hassan for icc/basis. Very briefly, i support other colleagues' support of our new mag member colleague from china's suggestions. I would also support patrick's input on the 60 minutes. I often find that it takes a bit of time to get the panel started, you lose time. 90 minutes means there has been good interaction. So i would prefer to stick to 90-minute workshop slots. Wanted to build on what (saying name) had said about why or how some of the speakers are selected or changed or what have you in terms of the main session. 
The mag works hard. We hope that more mag members will hope to coordinate substantively the main sessions but it takes a lot of work. 
Reaching out to speakers, confirming them, reconfirming them, getting their bios, getting everything together, those take a lot of work. And, frankly, i really would call on my fellow mag member colleagues that we need more people who actually roll up their sleeves and make that happen because i think that's one other cleavage in the ability to get new people -- new speakers in. We also have found that as zahid had mentioned not only for funding reasons but for visa reasons people drop out and mag coordinators of the main sessions are running around with a group of mag members trying to reach out and find people and that's where also mag members end up stepping in. So i just wanted to make that point, that there are reasons behind some of what we're seeing and i think we would all agree that needs to improve. But that's going to take a couple of different elements and real pro activity on behalf of the community and mag members who coordinate sessions. Thanks. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Switzerland, thomas, please? 
>> switzerland. Thank you. First of all, we are happy to see you back to chengetai. I have 47 points since i haven't spoken the whole day. No. 
[ laughter ] 
I will try to be brief. With regard what was raised by peter majors earlier, we should take this very serious about implementing the report of the cstd working group and, of course, knowing that the -- we can only implement most of the things probably when the igf is taking place. But since the cstd this year will take place in june and we have another consultation and mag meeting in may, it might be good and i really agree with peter, if the mag be proactive and think about until may at least to communicate something to the cstd because it will be the cstd who will draft the resolutions and so forth and so on to give a clear signal to the cstd in broad terms of how this is going to be implemented and to show that this is being taken seriously by the mag. I think that is important. 
With regard to many of the proposals that have been made on how to improve and reform and so on the igf, i also have made the experience myself, and i hear it from a number of participants, that there has been some kind of deja vous, repetition in several versions and issues of the igf and we have to try to experiment again a little bit more with new formats, new ways of doing things, also focusing on new aspects of initiatives. I will not repeat this list. I think there have been very many good proposals. Just want to focus on one. 
I don't think it makes sense to reduce the time of the workshops from 60 from 90 because of the reasons expressed before me. I will join those in saying we should avoid having big panels or even having small panels but take autopsy all the speaking time or most of the speaking time. The eurodig experience, one example has been mentioned, that's not the only one that has shown, if you have good moderators and people are prepared, you can actually run a whole plenary or workshop without a panel. You put everybody that you know will say something in the floor among the public and it creates a completely different atmosphere in terms of discussion culture and incites others from the floor to participate more actively as well. So there is no two-class discussion society with some people higher up than others or with different chairs than others. Everybody is more equal when everybody speaks from the floor. You just need one or two good moderators that are able to work in such an environment. I think more workshops and even plenaries try to go down that road and experiment with this also on the level of the igf. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. And carolina? 
>> thank you. My comments have been already expressed by other colleagues. I just wanted to add an extra thought regarding if we need to work out more efficiently how we work in workshops and we need to assess regional balance, gender balance, the relevance to the topic and we also need to incorporate the diversity issue. I mean, are we incorporating the new person? A new voice? Is the workshop organizer bringing someone new into the igf? So there are many variables to consider. And i think this last one is really essential and important to open up our community to new voices. But, still, i think there is a great challenge if we need to have speakers comprising all those different variables that we need to fill in. So i think we might need to rethink that as well. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. And yuliya, please. 
>> thank you, mr. Chair. Yuliya (saying name) from tech, and mag member as well. We would like -- of course, we would like to support the need to develop the newcomer session i think was mentioned by colleagues and proposed by (saying name) and to facilitate the inclusion because, for example, if we have -- if the person never organized the workshop before and they have a question of assessment, it could be a challenge. Secondly, of course not only to facilitate the inclusion but also maybe to bring the information because number of potential newcomers, they even don't know what the igf is about and that it exists. 
So maybe to facilitate and to improve the media coverage as well. 
Of course, we support the idea to view the format of the main sessions and it was a great idea from that perspective (indiscernible) maybe with a professional moderator which may be will be easier to make interactive sessions more comfortable for the moderators.
I would also like to support the proposal made by unesco concerning the idea to make a report on the actions that were taken after the workshop and we will volunteer to do this kind of report as well. 
A few words concerning the potential topics and themes. It was from our perspective a very good idea to have a subject of spam as well as inclusive development and the role of the internet and maybe cybersecurity issues and particularly in the developing part of the world. Thanks so much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. We have andrea also asked for the floor and we have a remote participant but then we really have to close. I think the interpreters will leave us soon. We can stay in the room for a little bit longer but i think by 6:00 they will turn the lights off. 
[ laughter ] 
Yes, please. Andrei. 
>> thank you, chair. I generally agree with the need for increasing quality of the workshops but i think that we need to find alternative ways not to limit the number of workshops because the internet governance has a lot of wide issues. 
I think the best way to improve this will be more conversion with the main topic of the igf main sessions. Lyndall shope-mafole, i could disagree with the idea of limitation of time of the workshop -- also, i could disagree with the idea of limitation of time of the workshop because sometimes 90 minutes isn't enough time for discussion of several topic the thank you very much. 
>>chair kummer: thank you. Remote participant. Farzeneh. 
>>remote intervention: there is an intervention from (speaking non-english) from gracela. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to participate through this plat farm and thank you for your patience to hear all the intervention. We would like to suggest a possibility to have a spanish simultaneous translators since we are now a considerable group around 100 participants organization. In this occasion attending from two different cities of argentina. It would help for better spreading of the purpose of igf and for these open consultation in order to maximize the ineffectiveness of future events. And in particular, it is participation, both at its head quarters and remote. (beep). 
Simultaneous transcription. We propose to improve the efficiency that provides the labor -- i'm sorry. I just missed that. We propose to improve the efficiency that provides the labor that develop igf open consultation 2013 with the possibility of using translators in the language of the accredited participant. At least we mean the five official languages taking into account the pronunciation of the diverse speakers and diverse interventions. This would be a very positive experience. 
It could encourage new volunteer members and becoming a multiplying agent and more obligation of -- regarding the goals of the wsis as well as the u.n. Goals and society. 
We understand that the simultaneous translation in spanish contribution has equal opportunities to reduce the gap (indiscernible) climate change which require a kind of (indiscernible) and circumstantial priorities change in order to operationalize maximize pursuits. I'm sorry. I have other interventions. I have to read (indiscernible) as well. There are so the interventions from veronica. 
(indiscernible) it might be worth considering having an open space for participants to post their expectations from the igf during day one and post to that space during the last day open space for participants to share what expectations came through (indiscernible). Clarifying what is expected might help during the sessions adjusting where possible in order to respond to the needs they were articulating. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you, and theresa. 
>> theresa swinehart: i will keep this very short. I will jump ahead to seize the opportunity. We had the discussion on the relevant sections -- 
>>chair kummer: microphone. 
>> theresa swinehart: i realize i might be mixing things up a little bit. On the relevant sections on the cstd work for improvements of igf. I think we have touched on several of the points but let me just highlight quickly from a business perspective we certainly support that it is time to move forward on the specific work areas and identify what's already underway. We'd also suggest that we try to take a look at accountability and transparency of how the recommendations are moving forward in that regard and try to keep track of them a little bit. Maybe a mapping of progress underway and taking a look at the reasoningal and national igf e&y to help provide inputs into how that's works, particularly look at a short summary at the beginning of each igf on areas that have been highlighted so we can really show that not only has there been work underway, there is work underway, and this meeting itself demonstrates that fully. 
Obviously one factor of achieving many of these recommendations to reinforce the issue of funding is a well financed secretariat that can successfully fully scale the recommendations on the igf improvements itself. And i will leave it at that. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you very much. I think that was a very timely statement to end our discussions. That was in many ways my major take-away, that all participants really seem to be committed to implement the recommendations of the cstd working group on igf improvements. And that is clearly, i think, a horizontal issue when we prepare for the bali meeting. 
Another concrete take-away is that we will have a welcoming session for the new mag members in may. So that's some concrete improvement. Also, i think the suggestion to have a webinar to help people prepare a workshop proposal, if needed, i think can be also a concrete improvement or help for newcomers to prepare their interventions. I heard a lot of proposals for substantive sessions. Very high in the list internet principles, human rights are high on the list but then also issues like spam, security were mentioned and i think many people listened to ayesha's call to be brave and to experiment with new formats while recognizing there's no one size fits all and we also have to be a little bit conservative taking into account sensitivities and practices of governments but also cultural sensitivities. We heard that in the past that not everybody finds the same format equally interesting. There are cultural preferences. 
I think on the whole, i heard there is a great willingness to move forward with new formats. 
As regards workshops, i think as in the past, there are diverging views. There are those that would like a drastic reduction in the number of workshops and as others point out, it is workshops that gets people to igf as it gives them speaking roles. 
Nevertheless, i think there is also a strong convergence of views that there is a need for a stronger feedback, maybe also for an assessment of workshops. And that is something the mag may wish to consider, that not every workshop is equally successful. And that also the idea to report on concrete impact and outcomes, what has happened since the workshops is something worth exploring. 
We have not touched on the other sessions. We have not touched on the dynamic coalitions. We have discussed that in the past. Not every coalition is equally dynamic. The dynamic coalition on rights i'm sure will play an important role in preparing if we go towards sessions for principles. 
Also, the idea of having an open-ended process kind of working group that will substantively prepare the session i think has found wide support. 
What else have we listened to? We have not talked about the open forums. I noticed in the past igf there was a slight maybe confusion. Originally open forums were designed for meetings for existing, relevant organizations to present their activities over the years. But i notice not every organization has done the same thing. Some used it more of a kind of workshop, interesting may be, but that was not the intended purpose. I think there is value in having an open forum. That will, for instance, allow the igf to report on its activities. 
Many people go to the igf, would never dream about going to the meeting of the ietf but they may be interested in listening to new engineers talking about the standards. It is married on keeping the format but i think we need to be a little bit stricter on not just giving a slot but also discussing with the organizers what they're going to present. 
I think icann as an organization has in the past been very good at presenting their current activities. And, as i said, not everybody has been equally disciplined. But i think there's a need, role, for the mag also to look at that. 
We had in the past hoped to promote best practices and created best practices forums but maybe not documented them well enough, not at least also to lack of resources. This also may be one area i heard best practices. This could be a concrete outcome. 
We will have to close otherwise we will have financial consequences. And i would leave it at that. And the very practical level, i'm told that many people have noticed the hotel rooms in geneva or exorbitantly expensive at the time of the next meeting and chengetai is looking at another date. And presumably that will be communicated in the due course. That's obviously relevant for the broader community. 
Lastly, tomorrow's meeting is a mag meeting. I think in accordance in past tradition it will be open to non-mag members with the possibility of having segment members only. But that will have to be discussed. 
With that, is there anything else, chengetai? 
>>chengetai masango: no. 
>>chair kummer: tomorrow, which room is it? 9:30. Which room, do we know the room tomorrow? 
>>chengetai masango: the same room. 
>>chair kummer: the same room tomorrow at 9:30. And sign the attendance list, please. Or give business cards to the secretariat. And now i pass the floor to our honorary chairman to conclude the meeting. Thank you. 
>> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. It is very interesting meeting we all have today except for a bit of confusion for room 11. 
[ laughter ] 
We have discussed most of the logistics and the substance of our next igf meeting in bali. From the logistic side, i'm sure all inputs related to so many things, food, coffee, meeting room area, the distance between hotels and meeting rooms, wifi connections, remote participation and blah, blah, blah. Hopefully i'm sure it will be picked up properly by the organizers. They are sitting there. So we can even discuss more in detail with them. 
And beginning the substance, we discussed so many things from cross-cutting issues as science and technology (indiscernible) related to science and technology, from cyber ethics is more (indiscernible), even (indiscernible) new technology. We discussed human rights. Interesting point, interesting cross-cutting point. Even in dubai it was discussed intensively. We have special issues like spam and so on.
And like mr. Kummar has concluded. The financial situations, hopefully together with so members it it can improve the igf and its financial activities. (beeping). 
Once again, i would like to thank all of you for all the inputs, all the fruitful discussions and tomorrow we will have in the same room the mag members, the mag meetings in room 11. So hope to see you tomorrow and, of course, presenting from indonesia, i would like to see you all from bali. It is not too far from me. Just a few hours' ride. Thank you. 
>>chair kummer: thank you to the interpreters and the scribes. 
[ applause ] 
***live scribing by brewer & darrenougue - www.quicktext.com***. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/065f39f1/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit 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 Feb 28 12:15:32 2013
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:15:32 -0500
Subject: [governance] Transcript of discussion at IGF Open Consultations
In-Reply-To: <512F89C2.1010605@cis-india.org>
References: <512F4840.8010205@cis-india.org> <512F89C2.1010605@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <CACAaNxhePsvBcgprTLaMUrd268LQvk=R399zN7VJ_yKguaisKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Pranesh,

Thanks, it is very useful to have these archived in this way!

Rgds,

McTim

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:

> Pranesh Prakash [2013-02-28 13:06]:
> >
> > Transcript from Pre-lunch discussions on Day 1 of the IGF Open
> > Consultations.
>
> The full transcript of Day 1 of the IGF Open Consultations.
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director
> Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/7b8e92b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ggithaiga at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 28 15:31:56 2013
From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:31:56 +0000
Subject: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10
In-Reply-To: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com>
References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>


Good peoplePlease find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and bestbits. 
Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor, Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing  faith in me. 
Opening Remarks

Acknowledge dignitaries and Participants


As
CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote
participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and
active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting
that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely interventions
from remote participants, and registration as participants in the WSIS +10.


The
civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand out:

·        
Enormous growth in
number of Internet users, in absolute figures, in percentage per country, in
global reach. 

·        
At the same time
most people in the world still can't access the Internet at all (for reasons of
infrastructure, economics, disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing
censorship, limited bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)

·        
Others like the
Small Islands Developing States that are susceptible to
natural disasters have such challenges as ageing infrastructure, a lack of
universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion and scarce resources. 

·        
Explosion
of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which are also facilitating
adoption and use of internet. 

·        
Social
media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive consumption of information
to actively creating and sharing information. There is much wider involvement of citizens in debates on
information society issues. 

·        
Growing awareness
of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the Internet and on our lives in
general.

·        
Continued
incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which people use, adapt and
invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind is free. 

·        
A lot has been
achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and shifting agendas. A very
concrete achievement is the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet
that has already been making its mark in the wider IG community.


However:

 

The internet presents a
new challenge in thinking about the protection and promotion of human rights, protection of the right to privacy, and data
protection online. 

 

Therefore an understanding of the human rights
environment online calls for an 
understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is
shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it
carries, and the controls that apply to such content.

 

As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from
Kenya, I can attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at
WSIS IS doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access
and therefore needs to be preserved.

 

There is need for all sectors, all countries to work
together to bridge divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests
to prevail.

 

Conclusion

The right to information, both to impart and to receive,
is a fundamental right that impacts every country in the world. While the right
to information is often regarded as being a "first world problem"
that is secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these
rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the right
to information.

 

As we take stock let us remind ourselves that
this event is not just a reiteration of well-worn themes, or a
self-congratulation 'festival' but that it really challenges and provides concrete
examples of how and where to implement the WSIS plan of action in a
holistic sense.

 

We need to ensure that internet access is
universal and affordable, and must therefore, be seen as a global public
infrastructure. 

 

Any positive agenda for internet freedom will
need to address  issues raised by developing nations
as well as being in line with the human rights values, and be negotiated
through a multi-stakeholder process.


 

A long-term objective would be to ensure that the internet continues to be a global, interconnected information commons governed in a
dispersed and participatory manner by its users.          

 

I thank you for
your attention. 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/41622fbb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 15:47:37 2013
From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:47:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10
In-Reply-To: <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>
References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com> <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAC0JwGN3xDObOnmawNt4GM_ydnFUZSYovATL_VUpk6LfKCnGdg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Grace for an excellent job with meaningful inputs by all.

The mention of the challenges faced by SIDS was very much appreciated.

Rgds,

Tracy



On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  Good people
> Please find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the
> opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and
> bestbits.
>
> Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor,
> Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing
>  faith in me.
>
> *Opening Remarks*
>
> *Acknowledge dignitaries and Participants*
>
> *
> *
>
> As CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote
> participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and
> active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting
> that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely
> interventions from remote participants, and registration as participants in
> the WSIS +10.****
>
>
>  The civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand
> out:****
>
> ·         Enormous growth in number of Internet users, in absolute
> figures, in percentage per country, in global reach. ****
>
> ·         At the same time most people in the world still can't access
> the Internet at all (for reasons of infrastructure, economics,
> disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing censorship, limited
> bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)****
>
> ·         Others like the Small Islands Developing States that are
> susceptible to natural disasters have such challenges as ageing
> infrastructure, a lack of universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion
> and scarce resources. ****
>
> ·         Explosion of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which
> are also facilitating adoption and use of internet. ****
>
> ·         Social media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive
> consumption of information to actively creating and sharing information.There is much
> wider involvement of citizens in debates on information society issues. **
> **
>
> ·         Growing awareness of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the
> Internet and on our lives in general.****
>
> ·         Continued incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which
> people use, adapt and invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind
> is free. ****
>
> ·         A lot has been achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and
> shifting agendas. A very concrete achievement is the Charter of Human
> Rights and Principles for the Internet that has already been making its
> mark in the wider IG community.****
>
> *
> *
>
> *However:*
>
>
>
> The internet presents a new challenge in thinking about the protection and
> promotion of human rights, protection of the right to privacy, and data
> protection online. ****
>
>
>
> Therefore an understanding of the human rights environment online calls
> for an  understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is
> shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it
> carries, and the controls that apply to such content.****
>
>
>
> As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from Kenya, I can
> attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at WSIS IS
> doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access and
> therefore needs to be preserved.****
>
>
>
> There is need for all sectors, all countries to work together to bridge
> divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests to prevail.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> *Conclusion*
>
> The right to information, both to impart and to receive, is a fundamental
> right that impacts every country in the world. While the right to
> information is often regarded as being a "first world problem" that is
> secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these
> rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the
> right to information.****
>
> ** **
>
> As we take stock let us remind ourselves that this event is not just a
> reiteration of well-worn themes, or a self-congratulation 'festival' but
> that it really challenges and provides concrete examples of how and where
> to implement the WSIS plan of action in a holistic sense.****
>
> ** **
>
> We need to ensure that internet access is universal and affordable, and
> must therefore, be seen as a global public infrastructure. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Any positive agenda for internet freedom will need to address  issues rai
> sed by developing nations as well as being in line with the human rightsvalues,andbe
> negotiated through a multi-stakeholder process. ****
>
>
>
> A long-term objective would be to ensure that the internet continues to be
> a global, interconnected information commons governed in a dispersed and
> participatory manner by its users.          ****
>
> ** **
>
> I thank you for your attention.****
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/64595054/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From shailam at yahoo.com  Thu Feb 28 16:11:21 2013
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10
In-Reply-To: <CAC0JwGN3xDObOnmawNt4GM_ydnFUZSYovATL_VUpk6LfKCnGdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com> <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl> <CAC0JwGN3xDObOnmawNt4GM_ydnFUZSYovATL_VUpk6LfKCnGdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1362085881.68663.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Excellent



 
The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !
..................... the renaissance of composure !



________________________________
 From: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com> 
Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org; irp-sc at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; mshears at cdt.org 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10
 

Thanks Grace for an excellent job with meaningful inputs by all.

The mention of the challenges faced by SIDS was very much appreciated.

Rgds,

Tracy



On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com> wrote:

Good people
>Please find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and bestbits. 
>
>
>Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor, Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing  faith in me. 
>
>
>Opening Remarks
>Acknowledge dignitaries and Participants
>
>
>As
CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote
participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and
active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting
that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely interventions
from remote participants, and registration as participants in the WSIS +10.
>
>
>The
civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand out:
>·         Enormous growth in
number of Internet users, in absolute figures, in percentage per country, in
global reach. 
>·         At the same time
most people in the world still can't access the Internet at all (for reasons of
infrastructure, economics, disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing
censorship, limited bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)
>·         Others like the
Small Islands Developing States that are susceptible to
natural disasters have such challenges as ageing infrastructure, a lack of
universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion and scarce resources. 
>·         Explosion
of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which are also facilitating
adoption and use of internet. 
>·         Social
media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive consumption of information
to actively creating and sharing information. There is much wider involvement of citizens in debates on
information society issues. 
>·         Growing awareness
of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the Internet and on our lives in
general.
>·         Continued
incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which people use, adapt and
invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind is free. 
>·         A lot has been
achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and shifting agendas. A very
concrete achievement is the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet
that has already been making its mark in the wider IG community.
>
>
>However:
> 
>The internet presents a
new challenge in thinking about the protection and promotion of human rights,protection of the right to privacy, and data
protection online. 
> 
>Therefore an understanding of the human rights
environment online calls for an 
understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is
shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it
carries, and the controls that apply to such content.
> 
>As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from
Kenya, I can attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at
WSIS IS doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access
and therefore needs to be preserved.
> 
>There is need for all sectors, all countries to work
together to bridge divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests
to prevail.
> 
>Conclusion
>The right to information, both to impart and to receive,
is a fundamental right that impacts every country in the world. While the right
to information is often regarded as being a "first world problem"
that is secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these
rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the right
to information.
> 
>As we take stock let us remind ourselves that
this event is not just a reiteration of well-worn themes, or a
self-congratulation 'festival' but that it really challenges and provides concrete
examples of how and where to implement the WSIS plan of action in a
holistic sense.
> 
>We need to ensure that internet access is
universal and affordable, and must therefore, be seen as a global public
infrastructure. 
> 
>Anypositiveagendaforinternetfreedomwill
need toaddress  issuesraisedbydevelopingnations
as well as being in linewith the human rightsvalues, andbe negotiated through amulti-stakeholderprocess. 
> 
>Along-termobjectivewouldbe toensurethattheinternetcontinuestobeaglobal,interconnectedinformationcommonsgovernedina dispersedandparticipatorymannerbyits users.          
> 
>I thank you for
your attention.
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/808c32de/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 18:27:42 2013
From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:27:42 +1200
Subject: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10
In-Reply-To: <1362085881.68663.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com>
	<BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>
	<CAC0JwGN3xDObOnmawNt4GM_ydnFUZSYovATL_VUpk6LfKCnGdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1362085881.68663.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAJwbTiDCB7Tt3ANz-SEe91oNwTiLbW=E7pcYK-UPO_XN6OUkug@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Grace, this is really excellent :)

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:11 AM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Excellent
>
>
> *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !*
> *..................... the renaissance of composure !
> *
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" <tracyhackshaw at gmail.com>
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org;
> irp-sc at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; mshears at cdt.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:47 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10
>
> Thanks Grace for an excellent job with meaningful inputs by all.
>
> The mention of the challenges faced by SIDS was very much appreciated.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Tracy
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>  Good people
> Please find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the
> opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and
> bestbits.
>
> Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor,
> Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing
>  faith in me.
>
> *Opening Remarks*
> *Acknowledge dignitaries and Participants*
> *
> *
> As CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote
> participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and
> active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting
> that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely
> interventions from remote participants, and registration as participants in
> the WSIS +10.****
>
>  The civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand
> out:****
> ·         Enormous growth in number of Internet users, in absolute
> figures, in percentage per country, in global reach. ****
> ·         At the same time most people in the world still can't access
> the Internet at all (for reasons of infrastructure, economics,
> disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing censorship, limited
> bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)****
> ·         Others like the Small Islands Developing States that are
> susceptible to natural disasters have such challenges as ageing
> infrastructure, a lack of universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion
> and scarce resources. ****
> ·         Explosion of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which
> are also facilitating adoption and use of internet. ****
> ·         Social media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive
> consumption of information to actively creating and sharing information.There is much
> wider involvement of citizens in debates on information society issues. **
> **
> ·         Growing awareness of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the
> Internet and on our lives in general.****
> ·         Continued incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which
> people use, adapt and invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind
> is free. ****
> ·         A lot has been achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and
> shifting agendas. A very concrete achievement is the Charter of Human
> Rights and Principles for the Internet that has already been making its
> mark in the wider IG community.****
> *
> *
> *However:*
>
> The internet presents a new challenge in thinking about the protection and
> promotion of human rights, protection of the right to privacy, and data
> protection online. ****
>
> Therefore an understanding of the human rights environment online calls
> for an  understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is
> shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it
> carries, and the controls that apply to such content.****
>
> As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from Kenya, I can
> attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at WSIS IS
> doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access and
> therefore needs to be preserved.****
>
> There is need for all sectors, all countries to work together to bridge
> divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests to prevail.**
> **
> ** **
> *Conclusion*
> The right to information, both to impart and to receive, is a fundamental
> right that impacts every country in the world. While the right to
> information is often regarded as being a "first world problem" that is
> secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these
> rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the
> right to information.****
> ** **
> As we take stock let us remind ourselves that this event is not just a
> reiteration of well-worn themes, or a self-congratulation 'festival' but
> that it really challenges and provides concrete examples of how and where
> to implement the WSIS plan of action in a holistic sense.****
> ** **
> We need to ensure that internet access is universal and affordable, and
> must therefore, be seen as a global public infrastructure. ****
> ** **
> Any positive agenda for internet freedom will need to address  issues rai
> sed by developing nations as well as being in line with the human rightsvalues,andbe
> negotiated through a multi-stakeholder process. ****
>
> A long-term objective would be to ensure that the internet continues to be
> a global, interconnected information commons governed in a dispersed and
> participatory manner by its users.          ****
> ** **
> I thank you for your attention.****
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Tel: +679 3544828
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/81366317/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Feb 28 18:43:26 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 10:43:26 +1100
Subject: [governance] wsis 10 closing ceremony speech
In-Reply-To: <512F1D30.2050205@itforchange.net>
References: <512F1D30.2050205@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <1ACAA97645B64AB6A8242DA29B18BD4A@Toshiba>

Great speech by Anita. Glad someone actually said something for a change!



From: parminder 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:02 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Subject: [governance] wsis 10 closing ceremony speech


pl find enclosed, and also below, the speech delivered by my colleague Anita Gurumurthy as a closing ceremony civil society speaker. 

parminder 



Statement by Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT for Change 

at the closing ceremony of WSIS plus 10 review 

held by UNESCO from 25th to 27th February, 2013




Dear fellow-citizens of the world;

On the occasion of this initial meeting in the WSIS+10 review process. I would like to take us back in time to the decade of the 90s and the particular sentiments at the turn of the millennium that framed the World Summit on the Information Society. In the late 90s, the power of the digital revolution was seen as heralding a new hope for addressing long standing challenges in development. At the same time, world leaders were also concerned that the digital divide at international and national levels could lead to shaping a new class of those who have access to ICTs and those who do not. As we stand at this milestone of the WSIS plus 10 review, we have the responsibility to go back to this concern. The Internet – as the future social paradigm – is already yet another axis shaping exclusion and power.

The WSIS Declaration of Principles titled 'Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium' avers in its preamble that no one should be excluded from the benefits the information society offers. It notes – with conviction interlaced with caution that - 'under favourable conditions', these technologies (that is, ICTs) can be a powerful instrument, increasing productivity, generating economic growth, job creation and employability and improving the quality of life of all. 

This is the moment of reckoning – for all of us – to ask if we stand at the threshold of a new positive future for all and if indeed, the global and national governance and policy architectures of the new techno-social paradigm have created the 'favourable conditions' for the good life that seemed plausible in 2003.

  a.. The economic crisis of the recent years, in the developed world, is a serious indictment of the macro economic pathways of neo-liberal growth and its policies. Recent research in Europe suggests that serious attention needs to be paid to the inequality in work - wages, working conditions and social cohesion - and its microeconomic implications.

  b.. Even in Latin America, despite relative economic stability and reduction in poverty in many countries, a recent research by the UN says that the richest 20% of the population on average earn 20 times more than the poorest 20%. There is a considerable job deficit and a large labour informality affecting mainly the young and women. Colombia, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Argentina and Guatemala have all seen an increase in inequality in the past decade.

  c.. The Asian giants China and India, often touted as rising economic powers, face huge challenges in socio-economic equity – the consuming middle class may but be a smokescreen that hides the livelihoods crisis for the majority.


All this has happened in the same decade that the Internet ought to have been been equalising social and economic opportunity. We need to sit back and reflect,what went wrong?Why did the Internet, and the Information Society phenomenon not do what it was supposed to do? This is the principal question that the WSIS review process must answer. 

If the good life is also about democratic transitions, then the miracles of technology may certainly be counted as harbingers of deep change in the past decade. Authoritarian states have had to come to terms with the power of interconnection in the network age. The Occupy Movement gave new hope to social movements. Yet, new configurations of power in mainstream spaces have more or less seen the political elite make way for a new class of economic elite – information society democracy remains as exclusionary as its predecessors. Perhaps more, with little place for women and others in the margins, and oblivious of new forms of violence and misogyny in the open and ostensibly emancipatory corridors of the virtual world. 

Those of us committed to build a people-centred, inclusive and development oriented information society have to come to terms with and interrogate the roots of these crises – the unfavourable conditions that seem to have jettisoned the equalising propensities of the Internet. 

The crisis today for the information society agenda is two fold – it is economic and it is cultural. The neo-liberal juggernaut has – at an unstoppable speed – usurped the power of connectedness. As some cyber enthusiasts continue to sing peons to the power of the supposedly decentralised, non-hierarchical and inclusive Net, the human predicament in real terms is far from this idealised picture. Today, a handful of colossal corporate mega-giants rule private empires - the top 10 Web sites accounted for 31 percent of US page views in 2001, 40 percent in 2006, and about 75 percent in 2010...” 

Centralization is the name of the game – the most powerful weapon in neo-liberalism's arsenal. Consider Google: when it comes to user data, today Google runs a much more centralized operation than five years ago where individual searches, youtube video histories, and calendars combine to generate individualised and targeted ads. The Internet market place atomises the consumer-user, coopting her persona as a commodity in a logic that may not be self evident to Internet enthusiasts unwilling to see the realpolitik.

The cultural crisis is deeper. What the architects of the WSIS documents perhaps underestimated is the way the information society would precipitate a normative crisis. As the Internet market place broadens its horizons, we see the individuals, communities and nations, fragmented by increasing self interest. The seamless geographies of the connected world are images of the Internet's economic paradigm – where membership for marginalised individuals, social groups and nations is a simple binary - assimilation or decimation. The talk of diversity and multiligualism notwithstanding, there is much less we can aspire today out of the promise of the networks society for collaboration and horizontalism than seemed plausible ten years ago. We need to pause and ask – are our normative frameworks – infoethics and info-civic imaginaries – adequate to ensure that every person, the last woman, can be a global citizen in the interconnected global world. 

What we are witness to instead of a reflection around the basics of democracy in the interconnected world, are anxieties of nations states that make ancient tribal chieftans seem like impeccable upholders of freedoms and the rule of law

The various international summits of the UN, Rio-Earth Summit in 1992 , Cairo in 1994 on population, Copenhagen in 1995 on social development, Beijing in 1996 for women – pursued problems confronting humanity with the resolve to find progressive solutions. Today these have contributed to the broadbasing and democratisation of civil society engagement. There are some lessons here for civil society in the information society space.

Also, as we move towards the WSIS + 10 review, we need to be cognizant of the competing demands of the Millennium Development Goals Review (Post 2015 Development Agenda), the processes to set the post-Rio+20 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the 20-year review of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD+20). These overlapping inter-governmental processes are bound to render the ideals of the WSIS declaration obscure unless we are able to pitch for a review that can offer analytical and pragmatic segways for the other UN reviews. 

The WSIS plus 10 review is a historic opportunity therefore to review the state of democracy – and I qualify, the state of global democracy. Here – we have two tasks

  1.. Re-interpreting human rights, equality and sustainability in the information society. This is a dialogue that must inform the other UN reviews and discussions on the crises of food, fuel, finance and climate change, poverty and deprivation, inequality and insecurity, and violence against women.

  2.. The second task is to explore the favourable conditions that can make the Internet an equaliser. As a global public good, the policy issues pertaining to the Internet are simultaneously global and national. Discussing the global policy issues around the Internet should be a principal aim of the WSIS plus 10 review process. 

We stand at cross-roads. The promise of community has never been greater in theory, but the risk to the collective never higher in the brazen pursuit of economic self interest and aggrandizement of power. For civil society the modus operandi of organising is clear. We need to ask how best we can sieze and use the decentralising possibilities of the network age to craft new forms of organisation; how we can define the core issues that reflect honestly our analysis of the crises. The WSIS plus 10 review process must indeed take a leaf out of Jo Freeman's essay - 'The tyranny of structurelessness'. Let not the ideals of democracy in multistakeholderism be reduced to shadowboxing – where emerging hierarchies are denied and those that wield power escape with no accountability.

Multistakeholderism is a framework and means of engagement, it is not a means of legitimization. Legitimization comes from people, from work with and among people. We need to use this occasion of the WSIS plus 10 review to go back to the the touchstone of legitimacy – engage with people and communities to find out the conditions of their material reality and what seems to lie ahead in the information society. From here we need to build our perspectives and then come to multistakeholder spaces and fight and fight hard for those who cannot be present here.





1Www.ITforChange.net 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/5fb720c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From george.sadowsky at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 22:52:13 2013
From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:52:13 -0500
Subject: [governance] my opening statement at WSIS +10
In-Reply-To: <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>
References: <0a2001ce14b5$be4fa5d0$3aeef170$@gmail.com> <BAY151-W2048F4D9433E057C18F3CB4FE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <213B4EDB-3BAC-4F0C-8E43-6CBDA13A2B45@gmail.com>

Grace,

I thought that your presentation at the UNESCO event in Paris was well crafted, balanced, and oriented toward a better understanding of the changes that have taken place since the initial WSIS events.  I was please to listen to it when you delivered it from the podium, and I am pleased that you have made it available in text form to this list.

Thank you very much, both for your passion and for your ability to perceive the reality of our current situation and to report it in a clear and positive manner.  I look forward to seeing your further contributions to the field of Internet governance as we progress.

Best regards,

George Sadowsky

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

 
On Feb 28, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote:

> Good people
> Please find my opening statement made on Monday 25/02/13 during the opening ceremony. It was crowd sourced from the IGC, IRP coalition and bestbits. 
> 
> Thanks to Deidre, Ginger, Allon, Anriette, Deborah, Andrew, Trevor, Marianne, Nobert and all of you for your support and for your showing  faith in me. 
> 
> Opening Remarks
> Acknowledge dignitaries and Participants
> 
> As CS, we applaud the efforts being made to provide accessible remote participation for this meeting, improving possibilities for inclusion and active engagement in this significant global policy process. It is exciting that WSIS is setting an example, which strongly supports timely interventions from remote participants, and registration as participants in the WSIS +10.
> 
> The civil society wishes to note the following developments that stand out:
> ·         Enormous growth in number of Internet users, in absolute figures, in percentage per country, in global reach.
> ·         At the same time most people in the world still can't access the Internet at all (for reasons of infrastructure, economics, disabilities, politics, etc.), or are experiencing censorship, limited bandwidth, physical accessibility, etc.)
> ·         Others like the Small Islands Developing States that are susceptible to natural disasters have such challenges as ageing infrastructure, a lack of universal accessibility with Digital Inclusion and scarce resources. 
> ·         Explosion of mobile phone use in particular in Africa, which are also facilitating adoption and use of internet.
> ·         Social media: People increasingly reaching beyond passive consumption of information to actively creating and sharing information. There is much wider involvement of citizens in debates on information society issues.
> ·         Growing awareness of the impact of policies on how we enjoy the Internet and on our lives in general.
> ·         Continued incredible intuitiveness and creativeness with which people use, adapt and invent technology—a demonstration that the human mind is free. 
> ·         A lot has been achieved in terms of consciousness-raising and shifting agendas. A very concrete achievement is the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet that has already been making its mark in the wider IG community.
> 
> However:
>  
> The internet presents a new challenge in thinking about the protection and promotion of human rights, protection of the right to privacy, and data protection online.
>  
> Therefore an understanding of the human rights environment online calls for an  understanding of the technical design of the internet and how it is shaped by commercial forces as well as looking at the kinds of content it carries, and the controls that apply to such content.
>  
> As we reflect on WSIS + 10, and as someone who comes from Kenya, I can attest to the fact that the multistakeholder model endorsed at WSIS IS doable and has worked for us. It has deepened efforts to expand access and therefore needs to be preserved.
>  
> There is need for all sectors, all countries to work together to bridge divides, tackle issues, and not allow geopolitical interests to prevail.
>  
> Conclusion
> The right to information, both to impart and to receive, is a fundamental right that impacts every country in the world. While the right to information is often regarded as being a "first world problem" that is secondary to the right to life, education, and health, neither of these rights can truly exist if we don't facilitate every means to achieve the right to information.
>  
> As we take stock let us remind ourselves that this event is not just a reiteration of well-worn themes, or a self-congratulation 'festival' but that it really challenges and provides concrete examples of how and where to implement the WSIS plan of action in a holistic sense.
>  
> We need to ensure that internet access is universal and affordable, and must therefore, be seen as a global public infrastructure.
>  
> Any positive agenda for internet freedom will need to address  issues raised by developing nations as well as being in line with the human rights values, and benegotiated through a multi-stakeholder process.
>  
> A long-term objective would be to ensure that the internet continues to be a global, interconnected information commons governed in a dispersed andparticipatory manner by its users.         
>  
> I thank you for your attention.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130228/8a2e2d4d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Feb 28 23:29:52 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 15:29:52 +1100
Subject: [governance] Internet theology
Message-ID: <32B63AA949E74BBA8524666D3FDE8BAA@Toshiba>

I did my best to follow the transcript of yesterdays Open Consultation and was rather frustrated by the content. Meanwhile Kieren McCarthy has provided a much more thorough analysis than I can here, which is well worth reading.


http://news.dot-nxt.com/2013/02/28/living-talk-shop-bubble

Let me add to these criticisms by pointing out the the growing volumes of materials to do with Internet theology. Internet theology includes the thorough analysis of text, placements of commas, and meanings which may be attributed to words in various languages in all of the various WSIS and post WSIS documents (hereinafter referred to as the Scriptures) . It also includes the decade of debates on the true meaning of multistakeholderism, and also on the true meaning of enhanced cooperation. 

I fear we have all become very inwardly focussed. This constant navel gazing may lead to total irrelevance of IGF.

Good luck to the MAG in moving us onwards from here. I think we have become rather stuck (but please don’t make the theme Science and Technology and Development, that also is an inwardly focussed attempt to shore up relationships with a sponsoring UN agency).


Ian Peter




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/c885937d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From apisan at unam.mx  Thu Feb 28 23:57:12 2013
From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch)
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 04:57:12 +0000
Subject: [governance] Internet theology
In-Reply-To: <32B63AA949E74BBA8524666D3FDE8BAA@Toshiba>
References: <32B63AA949E74BBA8524666D3FDE8BAA@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D63BB7F83@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>

Ian,

hermeneutics.

Alejandro Pisanty




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico



+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Enviado el: jueves, 28 de febrero de 2013 22:29
Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Asunto: [governance] Internet theology

I did my best to follow the transcript of yesterdays Open Consultation and was rather frustrated by the content. Meanwhile Kieren McCarthy has provided a much more thorough analysis than I can here, which is well worth reading.


http://news.dot-nxt.com/2013/02/28/living-talk-shop-bubble

Let me add to these criticisms by pointing out the the growing volumes of materials to do with Internet theology. Internet theology includes the thorough analysis of text, placements of commas, and meanings which may be attributed to words in various languages in all of the various WSIS and post WSIS documents (hereinafter referred to as the Scriptures) . It also includes the decade of debates on the true meaning of multistakeholderism, and also on the true meaning of enhanced cooperation.

I fear we have all become very inwardly focussed. This constant navel gazing may lead to total irrelevance of IGF.

Good luck to the MAG in moving us onwards from here. I think we have become rather stuck (but please don’t make the theme Science and Technology and Development, that also is an inwardly focussed attempt to shore up relationships with a sponsoring UN agency).


Ian Peter





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130301/4662fa73/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t