From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jul 31 23:54:33 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:54:33 +0700 Subject: [governance] Major opinion shifts on NSA surveillance and privacy Message-ID: <043601ce8e6a$dd6da0f0$9848e2d0$@gmail.com> I think this may be of more general interest. M http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/29/poll-nsa-surveillance-pr ivacy-pew Major opinion shifts, in the US and Congress, on NSA surveillance and privacy Pew finds that, for the first time since 9/11, Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism Glenn Greenwald guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 July 2013 07.33 EDT Numerous polls taken since our reporting on previously secret NSA activities first began have strongly suggested major public opinion shifts in how NSA surveillance and privacy are viewed. But a new comprehensive poll released over the weekend weekend by Pew Research provides the most compelling evidence yet of how stark the shift is. Among other things, Pew finds that "a majority of Americans -- 56% -- say that federal courts fail to provide adequate limits on the telephone and internet data the government is collecting as part of its anti-terrorism efforts." And "an even larger percentage (70%) believes that the government uses this data for purposes other than investigating terrorism." Moreover, "63% think the government is also gathering information about the content of communications." That demonstrates a decisive rejection of the US government's three primary defenses of its secret programs: there is adequate oversight; we're not listening to the content of communication; and the spying is only used to Keep You SafeT. But the most striking finding is this one: [begin inset] "Overall, 47% say their greater concern about government anti-terrorism policies is that they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties, while 35% say they are more concerned that policies have not gone far enough to protect the country. This is the first time in Pew Research polling that more have expressed concern over civil liberties than protection from terrorism since the question was first asked in 2004." [end inset] For anyone who spent the post-9/11 years defending core liberties against assaults relentlessly perpetrated in the name of terrorism, polling data like that is nothing short of shocking. This Pew visual underscores what a radical shift has occurred from these recent NSA disclosures: pew NSA Perhaps more amazingly still, this shift has infected the US Congress. Following up on last week's momentous House vote -- in which 55% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans defied the White House and their own leadership to vote for the Amash/Conyers amendment to ban the NSA's bulk phone records collection program -- the New York Times has an article this morning which it summarizes on its front page this way: nyt nsa The article describes how opposition to the NSA, which the paper says was recently confined to the Congressional "fringes", has now "built a momentum that even critics say may be unstoppable, drawing support from Republican and Democratic leaders, attracting moderates in both parties and pulling in some of the most respected voices on national security in the House." It describes how GOP Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner -- a prime author of the Patriot Act back in 2001 and a long-time defender of even the most extremist War on Terror policies -- has now become a leading critic of NSA overreach. He will have "a bill ready when Congress returned from its August recess that would restrict phone surveillance to only those named as targets of a federal terrorism investigation, make significant changes to the secret court that oversees such programs and give businesses like Microsoft and Google permission to reveal their dealings before that court." Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren is quoted this way: "There is a growing sense that things have really gone a-kilter here". Yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Democratic Sen Dick Durbin, one of Obama's closest Senate allies, said that the recently revealed NSA bulk record collection program "goes way too far". The strategy for the NSA and its Washington defenders for managing these changes is now clear: advocate their own largely meaningless reform to placate this growing sentiment while doing nothing to actually rein in the NSA's power. "Backers of sweeping surveillance powers now say they recognize that changes are likely, and they are taking steps to make sure they maintain control over the extent of any revisions," says the NYT. The primary problem enabling out-of-control NSA spying has long been the Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress. That's an ironic twist given that those were the committees created in the wake of the mid-1970s Church Committee to provide rigorous oversight, as a response to the recognition that Executive Branch's surveillance powers were being radically abused -- and would inevitably be abused in the future -- without robust transparency and accountability. But with a few rare and noble exceptions, the Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress are filled with precisely those members who are most slavishly beholden to, completely captured by, the intelligence community over which they supposedly serve as watchdogs. Many receive large sums of money from the defense and intelligence industries. There is a clear and powerful correlation between NSA support and amounts of money received by these members from those industries, as Wired's Dave Kravets adeptly documented about last week's NSA vote and has been documented before with similar NSA-protecting actions from the Intelligence Committee. In particular, the two chairs of those committees -- Democrat Dianne Feinstein in the Senate and Republican Mike Rogers in the House -- are such absolute loyalists to the NSA and the National Security State generally that it is usually impossible to distinguish their behavior, mindset and comments from those of NSA officials. In sum, the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are the pure embodiment of the worst of Washington: the corrupting influence of money from the very industries they are designed to oversee and the complete capture by the agencies they are supposed to adversarially check. Anything that comes out of the leadership of those two Committees that is labeled "NSA reform" is almost certain to be designed to achieve the opposite effect: to stave off real changes in lieu of illusory tinkering whose real purpose will be to placate rising anger. But that trick seems unlikely to work here. What has made these disclosures different from past NSA scandals -- including ones showing serious abuse of their surveillance powers -- are the large numbers of the NSA's own documents that are now and will continue to be available for the public to see, as well the sustained, multi-step nature of these disclosures, which makes this far more difficult for NSA defenders to predict, manage and dismiss away. At least as much as they are shining long-overdue light on these specific NSA domestic programs, the NSA disclosures are changing how Americans (and people around the world) think about the mammoth National Security State and whether it can and should be trusted with unchecked powers exercised in the dark. Those public opinion shifts aren't going to disappear as the result of some blatantly empty gestures from Dianne Feinstein and Mike Rogers masquerading as "reform". Despite the substantial public opinion shifts, Pew found that Americans are largely split on whether the NSA data-collection program should continue. The reason for this is remarkable and repugnant though, at this point, utterly unsurprising: [begin inset] Nationwide, there is more support for the government's data-collection program among Democrats (57% approve) than among Republicans (44%), but both parties face significant internal divisions: 36% of Democrats disapprove of the program as do 50% of Republicans. [end inset] Just as Democrats went from vehement critics of Bush's due-process-free War on Terror policies to vocal cheerleaders of Obama's drone kills and even Guantanamo imprisonments, the leading defenders of the NSA specifically and America's Surveillance State generally are now found among self-identified Democrats. That was embodied by how one of the most vocal Democratic NSA critics during the Bush years -- Nancy Pelosi -- in almost single-handedly saved the NSA from last week's House vote. If someone had said back in 2007 that the greatest support for NSA surveillance would be found among Democrats, many would find the very idea ludicrous. But such is life in the Age of Obama: one of his most enduring legacies is transforming his party from pretend-opponents of the permanent National Security State into its most enthusiastic supporters. But despite that hackish partisan opportunism, the positive opinion changes toward NSA surveillance and civil liberties can be seen across virtually all partisan and ideological lines: pew NSA The largest changes toward demanding civil liberties protections have occurred among liberal Democrats, Tea Party Republicans, independents and liberal/moderate Republicans. Only self-identified "moderate/conservative Democrats" -- the Obama base -- remains steadfast and steady in defense of NSA surveillance. The least divided, most-pro-NSA caucus in the House for last week's vote was the corporatist Blue Dog Democrat caucus, which overwhelmingly voted to protect the NSA's bulk spying on Americans. As I've repeatedly said, the only ones defending the NSA at this point are the party loyalists and institutional authoritarians in both parties. That's enough for the moment to control Washington outcomes -- as epitomized by the unholy trinity that saved the NSA in the House last week: Pelosi, John Bohener and the Obama White House -- but it is clearly not enough to stem the rapidly changing tide of public opinion. Other related matters (1) I was on ABC's This Week with Stephanopoulos discussing our newest NSA revelation coming this week about the actual surveillance powers of low-level NSA analysts. That interview be seen here. (2) On Wednesday morning, I'll be testifying, by remote video, before an ad hoc committee in the House of Representatives about NSA disclosures. It begins at 9:30 am ET and will, I believe, be broadcast on C-SPAN. Following my testimony will be an excellent panel featuring representatives of the ACLU and the Cato Institute on the dangers and excesses of the NSA. (3) At an event in Geneva over the week, Noam Chomsky was asked about Edward Snowden and these NSA stories. The transcript of his response is here, and the video can be seen here (it begins at roughly 1:21:00). It's definitely worth reading or watching what he has to say. (4) If I had to pick the most astonishing aspect of this episode so far, it would be that everyone now knows that the Obama administration's top national security official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, outright lied to the Senate about NSA programs. And yet -- as I said on ABC yesterday morning -- not only isn't he being prosecuted for that crime -- as much of a crime as anything Edward Snowden is accused of doing -- but he still has his job. That, of course, is because the "law" does not apply to high-level Washington officials and DC's National Security State is an accountability-free zone. But the law that makes Clapper's behavior a felony is clear and concise, and can be read here. __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use . Send us Feedback . http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=15209059/grpspId=1705083512/msgId =25997/stime=1375141952 __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 65413 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 87507 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 79917 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.gif Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2303 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.gif Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Jul 1 07:28:39 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:28:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs In-Reply-To: <51D0FE3E.9010001@itforchange.net> References: <51CD0257.5010006@communisphere.com> <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> <51CFD825.7040809@itforchange.net> <9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp> <51D04C5B.5090105@cafonso.ca> <51D0FE3E.9010001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, How about .BARCODE ? Is it generic, or genetic ? Cheers. Louis. - - - On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 5:57 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 30 June 2013 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Oh, OK, if Icann is "thinking" about it, problem solved :) > > > Maybe I am over perceiving it, but to me it looks lke the end of the road > for closed generics... I mean it is very difficult to find a plausible > 'public interest purpose' to allocate .book exclusively to Amazon and > .beauty to L' Oreal..... Maybe someone like *International Federation of > Library Associations *could still be handed over .book, but as for closed > generics owned by corporate houses I dont see it going forward after this. > However, happy to hear other views. And in case it really is still quite > open, maybe IGC should write to ICANN against closed generics, especially > now that even ALAC, which was quite ambivalent all the while, has endorsed > GAC's advice on closed generics.... Havent seen any NCUC statement on GAC > advice yet though.... > > parminder > > --c.a. > > On 06/30/2013 06:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > ICANN board's New gTLD Program Committee has been thinking about these issues. See > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.c > http://domainincite.com/13558-icann-freezes-closed-generic-gtld-bids > > Adam > > > On Jun 30, 2013, at 4:03 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > On Friday 28 June 2013 08:42 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html - might be of interest to the list. > > The senator's letter makes some very important points. Although it comes mostly from trademark owners' point of view while the problems in the new round of gTLDs associated with general community ownership of linguistic terms are underplayed, but that is perhaps expected from a mainstream US politician. > > GAC in their communiqué at the end of Beijing ICANN meeting proposed two very important things with regard to new gtlds > (1) "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal" > > (2) "Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws (and)... establish a working relationship with the relevant regulatory....bodies " > > I think civil society groups like the IGC should endorse these very important 'advices' which have a far reaching implication vis a vis how domain names allocation system functions.... Purely as a highest-bidder, market based system, or as a public interest oriented governance system. > > > These 'advices" represent the abject failure of the ICANN system to meet public interest requirements concerned with its global governance functions..... And I see this failure as kind of systemic. ICANN has somehow organised itself to *not* be able to address real world public interest issues, despite committees over committees over independent experts that it may designate on any issue - as it of course did it on the new gTLDs issue. > > Now, if you ask anyone on the street what does ICANN do, one is likely to say, if at all recognising the organisation, that it allocates top level domain names like .com..... and to that extent the new round of gTLDs represent ICANN's basic function.... and that it failed so miserably to address and uphold key public interest issues in terms of its basic function says a lot about the ICANN governance paradigm... > > parminder > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jul 1 13:06:38 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:06:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Flashmob in Sao Paulo for Marco Civil approval :-) Message-ID: *Sorry for cross-posting:* But this Wednesday, folks are organizing a FlashMob at MASP, Sao Paulo, in support of Marco Civil. More details if you are around: https://www.facebook.com/events/539413272773506/ There will be short films showings on topics like Net Neutrality (see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIRnRhrpCDE&feature=youtu.be) and speeches from Pedro Ekman (Intervozes), Renata Mielli (Barão de Itararé), Sérgio Amadeu (CGI) e Veridiana Alimonti (IDEC and CGI), Leonardo Sakamoto (Blog do Sakamoto) and Renato Rovai (Revista Fórum). Please, join the mob at twitter. Tag #MarcoCivil. And please, leave your supporting comments at: https://www.facebook.com/events/539413272773506/ Thank you, -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jul 1 15:14:32 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:14:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: NSA In-Reply-To: <1783108270.2064996146@nt.ntDB.mail.salsalabs.com> References: <1783108270.2064996146@nt.ntDB.mail.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fight for the Future Date: Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM Subject: NSA To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com Dear IDL members-- Recent leaks show that the U.S. Government and the NSA have turned the Internet into the most massive surveillance tool in history, constantly monitoring and invading the privacy of people all over the world. This July 4, as the U.S. celebrates its independence, we’re organizing a huge online protest for privacy-- in support of actions on the ground in cities around the country. Click here to join thousands of websites that will protest on July 4th to demand an end to NSA spying. We just started outreach and we’ve already got EFF, Wordpress, 4chan, Reddit, Namecheap, Imgur, Mozilla, Fark, TOR, BoingBoing, and Cheezburger signed up to participate. This will be our largest IDL protest since SOPA. We need you too! Millions have already taken action, but it’s going to take more than just petition signatures to stop the NSA from spying on the world’s Internet users. The U.S. government wants to forget its own Constitution. We’re going to make that completely impossible. Grassroots Internet users have organized Restore the Fourthprotests on the ground all over the U.S. on the 4th of July. Building off the energy of the StopWatching.uscoalition (which now has over 500,000 signers), and aiming to amplify the protests on the ground, we’re raising the Internet Defense League’s “Cat Signal” on July 4th, asking websites and organizations to show call out the NSA by displaying the text of the 4th Amendment. If you already have the IDL’s “all campaigns” code installed, you’re all set. The Cat Signal will be raised at midnight on July 4th and will turn off at midnight on July 5th. We’ll send out campaign specific code on Tuesday, for those who just want to participate in this action, but what we need you to do right now is help spread the word. We need to ramp this up and get everyone on board. If you have Twitter or Facebook, click the link below, if not, please blog, share, call your friends and tell them. This is going to be epic, so get everyone. We need you on this one. Click here to join our Thunderclap and help make this protest HUGE. This is a watershed moment for our basic rights to free speech, freedom of association, and privacy. What the NSA is doing is illegal, even as we wrote this email, we learned more details about the real-time eavesdropping abilities of PRISM. We are at the moment where we decide if the government should have the power to track, target, profile, and deem suspicious any one of us based on our small everyday movements. The first in line are probably the journalists we depend on, any of our friends or family who are even slightly political. This is why privacy matters -- it does not allow the government to unreasonably persecute anyone. There’s many ways to fight the NSA. Click here to see all the ways that you can participate on July 4th, online and in the streets. Given who we already have participating, this could be our biggest IDL action yet. Will you join? We’re counting on you. Sincerely, Holmes and Tiffiniy Internet Defense League SOURCES: 1) The Guardian, “NSA collected U.S. email records in bulk for more than 2 years under Obama” 2) Washington Post, “Here’s everything we know about how the NSA’s secret programs work” 3) Slate, “Obama Has Charged More Under Espionage Act Than All Other Presidents Combined” 4) Watch Glen Greenwald on Democracy Now as he proves that Dianne Feinstein lied to the camera 5) The Atlantic, “2 Senators Say the NSA is Still Feeding us False Information” Click here to unsubscribe ** -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 2 02:33:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:03:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=22UN=E2=80=88must_step_in_to_stop_cyber_t?= =?UTF-8?Q?hreats=22?= Message-ID: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> Below from an Indian newspaper.... http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130702/commentary-dc-comment/commentary/un%E2%80%88must-step-stop-cyber-threats Now that the chimera of the US as the unique upholder of Internet's values and people's rights on the Internet is so obviously exposed....... and we know that when US calls for a single unified global Internet, and its unique historic role in its governance (read, control), what really does it mean.... parminder from the Deccan Chronicle UN must step in to stop cyber threats DC | 2 hours 7 min ago "This is not the Cold War anymore,” says an upset Germany. This was the mildest of rebukes thus far in the wake of the revelations about the American NSA courtesy Edward Snowden. Spying has been taken into another dimension altogether and the present battle could well be called the “Great Cyber War”. The United States, caught spying, does not have a fig leaf of deniability. This is not just Big Brother watching over its citizens, as portrayed in the landmark novel 1984. The US has crossed all limits and is now spying on its closest friends and thickest allies as well. European Union nations have been forced to undertake security sweeps to ensure their computer systems are not being hacked into and their telephone conversations eavesdropped upon. China, first typecast as the world’s original cyber bad boy, is mockingly pointing to its great rival across the seas to show the world there isn’t just one culprit in modern espionage. If all nations do not get together and sign a treaty to stop cyber espionage, things are only going to get worse for those who love privacy. The United States’ spying on its allies takes the issue beyond the fundamental argument that the threat of terrorism overrides the tenets of privacy and justifies invasion of individual liberties. What the great National Security Agency spy programs of Maryland and Utah have been doing is to spy on governments, their trade, science, military and political secrets. All explanations regarding PRISM and other programs studying only metadata, and not prying into individual interactions over the Internet and telephone, cut no ice with a world that is aghast at the temerity of the most powerful nation in a virtually unipolar world. Much like Germany, India, too, protested so mildly that its voice was hardly heard when US secretary of state John Kerry came calling last week. So protective of his guest was our foreign minister, Salman Khurshid, that the media could not question the visiting dignitary on what his country’s real intentions are in setting up this elaborate $40-billion-plus spying apparatus that snoops on the world. China came through far more aggressively in questioning the United States on all that the world has heard ever since a sub-contractor went on the lam and spilled the beans from Hong Kong with the help of WikiLeaks. If clarity and transparency are the qualities most needed to cool tensions among nations and passions among privacy-seekers, what will really serve society is for the United Nations to pay serious attention to this crisis of confidence and come up with an action plan to mark cyber boundaries and make them as inviolable as possible by common consent. *** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 2 03:05:22 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:35:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=22UN=E2=80=88must_step_in_to_stop_cyb?= =?UTF-8?Q?er_threats=22?= In-Reply-To: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> References: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: "we"? I don't recall seeing a call for consensus on this issue. And I don't particularly recall just how or where moving the internet to a non multistakeholder and government only environment is going to cause less of this rather than more. --srs (iPad) On 02-Jul-2013, at 12:03, parminder wrote: > > Below from an Indian newspaper.... http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130702/commentary-dc-comment/commentary/un%E2%80%88must-step-stop-cyber-threats > > Now that the chimera of the US as the unique upholder of Internet's values and people's rights on the Internet is so obviously exposed....... and we know that when US calls for a single unified global Internet, and its unique historic role in its governance (read, control), what really does it mean.... > > parminder > > > from the Deccan Chronicle > UN must step in to stop cyber threats > > DC | 2 hours 7 min ago > > > "This is not the Cold War anymore,” says an upset Germany. This was the mildest of rebukes thus far in the wake of the revelations about the American NSA courtesy Edward Snowden. > > Spying has been taken into another dimension altogether and the present battle could well be called the “Great Cyber War”. The United States, caught spying, does not have a fig leaf of deniability. > > This is not just Big Brother watching over its citizens, as portrayed in the landmark novel 1984. The US has crossed all limits and is now spying on its closest friends and thickest allies as well. > > European Union nations have been forced to undertake security sweeps to ensure their computer systems are not being hacked into and their telephone conversations eavesdropped upon. > > China, first typecast as the world’s original cyber bad boy, is mockingly pointing to its great rival across the seas to show the world there isn’t just one culprit in modern espionage. If all nations do not get together and sign a treaty to stop cyber espionage, things are only going to get worse for those who love privacy. > > The United States’ spying on its allies takes the issue beyond the fundamental argument that the threat of terrorism overrides the tenets of privacy and justifies invasion of individual liberties. What the great National Security Agency spy programs of Maryland and Utah have been doing is to spy on governments, their trade, science, military and political secrets. > > All explanations regarding PRISM and other programs studying only metadata, and not prying into individual interactions over the Internet and telephone, cut no ice with a world that is aghast at the temerity of the most powerful nation in a virtually unipolar world. > > Much like Germany, India, too, protested so mildly that its voice was hardly heard when US secretary of state John Kerry came calling last week. So protective of his guest was our foreign minister, Salman Khurshid, that the media could not question the visiting dignitary on what his country’s real intentions are in setting up this elaborate $40-billion-plus spying apparatus that snoops on the world. > > China came through far more aggressively in questioning the United States on all that the world has heard ever since a sub-contractor went on the lam and spilled the beans from Hong Kong with the help of WikiLeaks. > > If clarity and transparency are the qualities most needed to cool tensions among nations and passions among privacy-seekers, what will really serve society is for the United Nations to pay serious attention to this crisis of confidence and come up with an action plan to mark cyber boundaries and make them as inviolable as possible by common consent. > > *** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 2 03:05:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:05:18 +0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?RE=3A_=5Bbestbits=5D_=22UN=E2=80=88must_st?= =?UTF-8?Q?ep_in_to_stop_cyber_threats=22?= In-Reply-To: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> References: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <04b801ce76f2$8aec0590$a0c410b0$@gmail.com> If this is to move beyond hand wringing into some sort of action then there will need to be some very concerted and high quality intervention from CS. Many of those with an interest in these matters are quite compromised (including various of the larger states) and will have security appartuses which will be very reluctant to support initiatives. Many smaller states with an interest will not have expertise. Perhaps a working group of CS might be struck specifically to be thinking about measures that could be proposed concerning the control of security/privacy interventions at a global level. It would be great I think, (in fact necessary if possible) that this be truly multi-stakeholder with a very very signficant role for the Technical community, associated/sympathetic private sector and sympathetic governments, but I think that CS needs to take the lead in beginning some sort of formulation and the creation of the framework to undertake this work. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: [bestbits] "UN must step in to stop cyber threats" Below from an Indian newspaper.... http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130702/commentary-dc-comment/commentary/un%E2%80%88must-step-stop-cyber-threats Now that the chimera of the US as the unique upholder of Internet's values and people's rights on the Internet is so obviously exposed....... and we know that when US calls for a single unified global Internet, and its unique historic role in its governance (read, control), what really does it mean.... parminder from the Deccan Chronicle UN must step in to stop cyber threats DC | 2 hours 7 min ago "This is not the Cold War anymore,” says an upset Germany. This was the mildest of rebukes thus far in the wake of the revelations about the American NSA courtesy Edward Snowden. Spying has been taken into another dimension altogether and the present battle could well be called the “Great Cyber War”. The United States, caught spying, does not have a fig leaf of deniability. This is not just Big Brother watching over its citizens, as portrayed in the landmark novel 1984. The US has crossed all limits and is now spying on its closest friends and thickest allies as well. European Union nations have been forced to undertake security sweeps to ensure their computer systems are not being hacked into and their telephone conversations eavesdropped upon. China, first typecast as the world’s original cyber bad boy, is mockingly pointing to its great rival across the seas to show the world there isn’t just one culprit in modern espionage. If all nations do not get together and sign a treaty to stop cyber espionage, things are only going to get worse for those who love privacy. The United States’ spying on its allies takes the issue beyond the fundamental argument that the threat of terrorism overrides the tenets of privacy and justifies invasion of individual liberties. What the great National Security Agency spy programs of Maryland and Utah have been doing is to spy on governments, their trade, science, military and political secrets. All explanations regarding PRISM and other programs studying only metadata, and not prying into individual interactions over the Internet and telephone, cut no ice with a world that is aghast at the temerity of the most powerful nation in a virtually unipolar world. Much like Germany, India, too, protested so mildly that its voice was hardly heard when US secretary of state John Kerry came calling last week. So protective of his guest was our foreign minister, Salman Khurshid, that the media could not question the visiting dignitary on what his country’s real intentions are in setting up this elaborate $40-billion-plus spying apparatus that snoops on the world. China came through far more aggressively in questioning the United States on all that the world has heard ever since a sub-contractor went on the lam and spilled the beans from Hong Kong with the help of WikiLeaks. If clarity and transparency are the qualities most needed to cool tensions among nations and passions among privacy-seekers, what will really serve society is for the United Nations to pay serious attention to this crisis of confidence and come up with an action plan to mark cyber boundaries and make them as inviolable as possible by common consent. *** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 2 03:18:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:48:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN suspends closed generic top level domain bids Message-ID: <51D27EC3.1010903@itforchange.net> About the real business that ICANN does, and for whatever reasons avoids speaking much about..... http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/icann-suspends-closed-generic-top-level-domain-bids/article4870401.ece Return to frontpage Technology » Internet Published: July 2, 2013 00:09 IST | Updated: July 2, 2013 00:13 IST ICANN suspends closed generic top level domain bids Karthik Subramanian Temporarily freezes move that could have led to global corporates monopolising the WWW by privatising domains like .beauty or .book The Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names (ICANN) has put on hold a controversial decision to allot closed generic Top Level Domains (gTLD) to applicants. Governments and activists had feared that allotting such generic domains would lead to a global corporate monopoly over the World Wide Web, by claiming exclusive rights for domains such as /.book/ or /.beauty/. “Hopefully this is the end for closed generic Top Level Domains applications and it is a victory for those who have raised their voice against it,” said Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director of Bangalore-based NGO ‘IT for Change.’ Last week, a newly reconstituted gTLD committee paid heed to the objections raised by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee, which had in April pointed out several problems in the process of handing out gTLDs under a “single registrant” business model. This differs from the regular business model for TLD names like /.com /or /.org/ where the domains names are then resold to other users in an open market on first come, first served basis. Under the single registrant model, companies like Amazon and Google could own exclusively /.book/ or ./cloud/, both generic name strings, thus paving the way for monopolistic branding. The process of handing out the contracts to applicants has been put on hold for closed generic top level domains. It is speculated that over such 70 contract bids have been identified by ICANN. In April, the Government Advisory Committee of ICANN met in Beijing and prepared what was called as “Beijing Communiqué” in which it had raised, among other things, objections over applications for the generic TLDs .islam or .halal. It raised fears that the applicants did not have community backing. It also requested ICANN to not proceed beyond initial assessment for the bids for domains such as .shenzen, .date, .spa and a few others. Parminder Jeet Singh, had in an article in September in /The Hindu/, noted that ICANN was taking a decision on behalf of the people of the world in handing out generic domain names to corporates that had the wherewithal to pay the registration fee of $185,000. They also had the potential to invest in building business models on such monopoly use of generic terms as their private top level domains. However, ICANN has not officially said it has dropped the processing of the closed gTLD applications, but has merely frozen it, pending further consultations with governments. Such consultations may take place when ICANN meets in Durban, South Africa, later this month. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14000 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jul 2 03:19:17 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:49:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?RE=3A_=5Bbestbits=5D_=22UN=E2=80=88mus?= =?UTF-8?Q?t_step_in_to_stop_cyber_threats=22?= In-Reply-To: <04b801ce76f2$8aec0590$a0c410b0$@gmail.com> References: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> <04b801ce76f2$8aec0590$a0c410b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Given the right wording and an avoidance of inflammatory language, and specific goals, you will definitely find consensus on this, and a willingness to contribute open source code too. --srs (iPad) On 02-Jul-2013, at 12:35, "michael gurstein" wrote: > If this is to move beyond hand wringing into some sort of action then there will need to be some very concerted and high quality intervention from CS. Many of those with an interest in these matters are quite compromised (including various of the larger states) and will have security appartuses which will be very reluctant to support initiatives. > > Many smaller states with an interest will not have expertise. > > Perhaps a working group of CS might be struck specifically to be thinking about measures that could be proposed concerning the control of security/privacy interventions at a global level. > > It would be great I think, (in fact necessary if possible) that this be truly multi-stakeholder with a very very signficant role for the Technical community, associated/sympathetic private sector and sympathetic governments, but I think that CS needs to take the lead in beginning some sort of formulation and the creation of the framework to undertake this work. > > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > Subject: [bestbits] "UN must step in to stop cyber threats" > > > Below from an Indian newspaper.... http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130702/commentary-dc-comment/commentary/un%E2%80%88must-step-stop-cyber-threats > > Now that the chimera of the US as the unique upholder of Internet's values and people's rights on the Internet is so obviously exposed....... and we know that when US calls for a single unified global Internet, and its unique historic role in its governance (read, control), what really does it mean.... > > parminder > > > from the Deccan Chronicle > UN must step in to stop cyber threats > > DC | 2 hours 7 min ago > > > "This is not the Cold War anymore,” says an upset Germany. This was the mildest of rebukes thus far in the wake of the revelations about the American NSA courtesy Edward Snowden. > > Spying has been taken into another dimension altogether and the present battle could well be called the “Great Cyber War”. The United States, caught spying, does not have a fig leaf of deniability. > > This is not just Big Brother watching over its citizens, as portrayed in the landmark novel 1984. The US has crossed all limits and is now spying on its closest friends and thickest allies as well. > > European Union nations have been forced to undertake security sweeps to ensure their computer systems are not being hacked into and their telephone conversations eavesdropped upon. > > China, first typecast as the world’s original cyber bad boy, is mockingly pointing to its great rival across the seas to show the world there isn’t just one culprit in modern espionage. If all nations do not get together and sign a treaty to stop cyber espionage, things are only going to get worse for those who love privacy. > > The United States’ spying on its allies takes the issue beyond the fundamental argument that the threat of terrorism overrides the tenets of privacy and justifies invasion of individual liberties. What the great National Security Agency spy programs of Maryland and Utah have been doing is to spy on governments, their trade, science, military and political secrets. > > All explanations regarding PRISM and other programs studying only metadata, and not prying into individual interactions over the Internet and telephone, cut no ice with a world that is aghast at the temerity of the most powerful nation in a virtually unipolar world. > > Much like Germany, India, too, protested so mildly that its voice was hardly heard when US secretary of state John Kerry came calling last week. So protective of his guest was our foreign minister, Salman Khurshid, that the media could not question the visiting dignitary on what his country’s real intentions are in setting up this elaborate $40-billion-plus spying apparatus that snoops on the world. > > China came through far more aggressively in questioning the United States on all that the world has heard ever since a sub-contractor went on the lam and spilled the beans from Hong Kong with the help of WikiLeaks. > > If clarity and transparency are the qualities most needed to cool tensions among nations and passions among privacy-seekers, what will really serve society is for the United Nations to pay serious attention to this crisis of confidence and come up with an action plan to mark cyber boundaries and make them as inviolable as possible by common consent. > > *** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 2 07:24:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:54:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?RE=3A_=5Bbestbits=5D_=22UN=E2=80=88mus?= =?UTF-8?Q?t_step_in_to_stop_cyber_threats=22?= In-Reply-To: <04b801ce76f2$8aec0590$a0c410b0$@gmail.com> References: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> <04b801ce76f2$8aec0590$a0c410b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51D2B860.8000804@itforchange.net> Yes, Michael, beyond hand wringing one must go - as a responsible political group.... I have suggested that the Internet Rights and Principles (IRP) Coalition anchors this as a civil society initiative, building it on its existing IRP document.... Comes up with principles that should govern ownership of personal data, and other legal processes around it. But, this can usefully happen only around an institutional anchor with possible international adoption, and thus fruitfulness.... Like OECD's Internet policy committee seeking to adopt such norms and principles, and civil society making the initial contribution, and then keeping up the pressure. Something like that at a global scale. Internet is a new shared global 'living space', like perhaps none before (or just a few, like macro geo-ecology) ..... We must, with some urgency, come to begin setting the norms and rules for our collective sharing and living in this new space..... There is just no other option, Sooner we realise this, the better. (But of course those who can dominate this space in absence of legitimate norms and rules use all kinds of devices to push back any such progressive move. The problem is that civil society has mostly taken the bait.....) And so we need to figure out not only the possible blueprints of such norms and rules (which themselves beg a platform to take them forward), but also the institutional systems for their fruitful adoption, and, to the extent needed, enforcement.... Like Dominique recently suggested on this list, an International court for digital rights.... Such kind of stuff..... Time we pulled our proverbial head out of the sand..... parminder On Tuesday 02 July 2013 12:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > If this is to move beyond hand wringing into some sort of action then > there will need to be some very concerted and high quality > intervention from CS. Many of those with an interest in these matters > are quite compromised (including various of the larger states) and > will have security appartuses which will be very reluctant to support > initiatives. > > Many smaller states with an interest will not have expertise. > > Perhaps a working group of CS might be struck specifically to be > thinking about measures that could be proposed concerning the control > of security/privacy interventions at a global level. > > It would be great I think, (in fact necessary if possible) that this > be truly multi-stakeholder with a very very signficant role for the > Technical community, associated/sympathetic private sector and > sympathetic governments, but I think that CS needs to take the lead in > beginning some sort of formulation and the creation of the framework > to undertake this work. > > M > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:34 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, > *Subject:* [bestbits] "UN must step in to stop cyber threats" > > > Below from an Indian newspaper.... > http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130702/commentary-dc-comment/commentary/un%E2%80%88must-step-stop-cyber-threats > > > Now that the chimera of the US as the unique upholder of Internet's > values and people's rights on the Internet is so obviously > exposed....... and we know that when US calls for a single unified > global Internet, and its unique historic role in its governance (read, > control), what really does it mean.... > > parminder > > from the Deccan Chronicle > > > UN must step in to stop cyber threats > > DC | 2 hours 7 min ago > > "This is not the Cold War anymore,” says an upset Germany. This was > the mildest of rebukes thus far in the wake of the revelations about > the American NSA courtesy Edward Snowden. > > Spying has been taken into another dimension altogether and the > present battle could well be called the “Great Cyber War”. The United > States, caught spying, does not have a fig leaf of deniability. > > This is not just Big Brother watching over its citizens, as portrayed > in the landmark novel 1984. The US has crossed all limits and is now > spying on its closest friends and thickest allies as well. > > European Union nations have been forced to undertake security sweeps > to ensure their computer systems are not being hacked into and their > telephone conversations eavesdropped upon. > > China, first typecast as the world’s original cyber bad boy, is > mockingly pointing to its great rival across the seas to show the > world there isn’t just one culprit in modern espionage. If all nations > do not get together and sign a treaty to stop cyber espionage, things > are only going to get worse for those who love privacy. > > The United States’ spying on its allies takes the issue beyond the > fundamental argument that the threat of terrorism overrides the tenets > of privacy and justifies invasion of individual liberties. What the > great National Security Agency spy programs of Maryland and Utah have > been doing is to spy on governments, their trade, science, military > and political secrets. > > All explanations regarding PRISM and other programs studying only > metadata, and not prying into individual interactions over the > Internet and telephone, cut no ice with a world that is aghast at the > temerity of the most powerful nation in a virtually unipolar world. > > Much like Germany, India, too, protested so mildly that its voice was > hardly heard when US secretary of state John Kerry came calling last > week. So protective of his guest was our foreign minister, Salman > Khurshid, that the media could not question the visiting dignitary on > what his country’s real intentions are in setting up this elaborate > $40-billion-plus spying apparatus that snoops on the world. > > China came through far more aggressively in questioning the United > States on all that the world has heard ever since a sub-contractor > went on the lam and spilled the beans from Hong Kong with the help of > WikiLeaks. > > If clarity and transparency are the qualities most needed to cool > tensions among nations and passions among privacy-seekers, what will > really serve society is for the United Nations to pay serious > attention to this crisis of confidence and come up with an action plan > to mark cyber boundaries and make them as inviolable as possible by > common consent. > > *** > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 3 02:19:16 2013 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:19:16 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Appeals Team 2013 - 2014 / Deadline COB: Monday July 8th 2013 Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Call for nominees from the IGC List to serve on the Appeals Team for 2013 - 2014 I post this in my capacity as non-voting Chair of the NomCom for the selection process. I hope that many of you will be very enthusiastic about nominating! Background The role of the Appeals Team is described in the IGC Charter as follows: An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as defined within the Charter. Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team. To see how the nominating committee is selected, visit: http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process Duties of the Appeals Team Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or ore votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed. Selection Criteria and information requested: To nominate yourself or another consenting person, please send the NomCom a statement that answers the following questions and selection criteria. Please send this statement and your CV before the end of your business day on Monday 8th July 2013. 1. Your name, email and contact number 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are affiliated to. If you have been nominated by such a network or entity please provide information on the selection process. 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 Please respond to the following criteria in your nomination statement: - your interaction with the IGC List - your experience, if any, in human resources/conflict management - your technical knowledge related to IGC discussions The NomCom will also take into account: - the content of your CV - regional and gender balance - as per members of the current Appeals team, the IGC Coordinators and the NomCom members, voting and non-voting, are not eligible to nominate Please contact me if you have any questions. The NomCom looks forward to your enthusiastic nominations! warm regards, Tracey __________________ Tracey Naughton (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, Geneva and Tunis) Communication for Development Consultant Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - Extractive Sector ____________________________________ based in Victoria, Australia land line: +613 54706853 mobile: +61 413 019 707 skype: tnaughton9999 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 3 04:00:45 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:00:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Appeals Team 2013 - 2014 / Deadline COB: Monday July 8th 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130703100045.3172ff86@quill> Tracey Naughton wrote: > Please send this statement and your CV before the end of your > business day on Monday 8th July 2013. To which email address should the volunteers send this? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jul 3 04:52:52 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:22:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interesting developments in India's cyber security policies Message-ID: http://www.techgig.com/tech-news/editors-pick/Govt-releases-National-Cyber-Security-Policy-2013-18707 [From the article] With an aim to protect information and build capabilities to prevent cyberattacks, the government released the National Cyber Security Policy 2013 to safeguard both physical and business assets of the country. IMHO this is quite late - but at least it's there. The clauses of the policy are the usual "subject to further improvement" though it's a step in some direction (as against the policy paralysis that's been going on the past year). -C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 3 06:09:43 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:39:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interesting developments in India's cyber security policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51D3F867.8020105@itforchange.net> While in any national cyber security policy one has to also watch out for newer avenues to control/censor content, because the same infrastructure can be used for it, on a different note, what is noteworthy is the Minister’s insistence on need for global standards. to quote "In the ultimate analysis, we have to develop global standards because there is no way that we can have a policy within the context of India which is not connected with the rest of the world because information knows no territorial boundaries," Mr Sibal added. He said everything today is cross border, we have to corroborate to find what is that meeting ground which allows the citizens to be empowered and at the same time ensures that nation is safe." http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/government-releases-national-cyber-security-policy-2013-386905 On Wednesday 03 July 2013 02:22 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > http://www.techgig.com/tech-news/editors-pick/Govt-releases-National-Cyber-Security-Policy-2013-18707 > [From the article] With an aim to protect information and build > capabilities to prevent cyberattacks, the government released the > National Cyber Security Policy 2013 to safeguard both physical and > business assets of the country. > IMHO this is quite late - but at least it's there. The clauses of the > policy are the usual "subject to further improvement" though it's a > step in some direction (as against the policy paralysis that's been > going on the past year). > -C > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 3 06:53:13 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:23:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Interesting developments in India's cyber security policies In-Reply-To: <51D3F867.8020105@itforchange.net> References: <51D3F867.8020105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93A12048-9C4B-479A-A0A1-8E4260C221E7@hserus.net> There is also mention of adoption of open standards - which has also been emphasized in the past by various sections of GoI Participation in existing standards processes and working groups is key though. Both participation by government and facilitating / encouraging the participation of other stakeholders. These and several others are unfortunately old wine in a new bottle, right now. What is urgently lacking is a privacy law - which is required urgently because of a huge privacy vacuum in India (with marketers getting hold of ID proof and other personal data submitted to service providers, cases of data theft from call centers etc - not to mention the current and proposed monitoring and lawful intercept efforts the government has in plan) I know that industry groups and civil society are collaborating on creating suggested drafts of a privacy bill, but there has also been a long standing tendency among certain parts of the bureaucracy to completely ignore public feedback, or if they have a feedback / consultation phase at all, make it perfunctory, with comments only from a few invited people and organizations. --srs (iPad) On 03-Jul-2013, at 15:39, parminder wrote: > > While in any national cyber security policy one has to also watch out for newer avenues to control/censor content, because the same infrastructure can be used for it, on a different note, what is noteworthy is the Minister’s insistence on need for global standards. > > to quote > > "In the ultimate analysis, we have to develop global standards because there is no way that we can have a policy within the context of India which is not connected with the rest of the world because information knows no territorial boundaries," Mr Sibal added. He said everything today is cross border, we have to corroborate to find what is that meeting ground which allows the citizens to be empowered and at the same time ensures that nation is safe." > > http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/government-releases-national-cyber-security-policy-2013-386905 > > On Wednesday 03 July 2013 02:22 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >> http://www.techgig.com/tech-news/editors-pick/Govt-releases-National-Cyber-Security-Policy-2013-18707 >> >> [From the article] With an aim to protect information and build capabilities to prevent cyberattacks, the government released the National Cyber Security Policy 2013 to safeguard both physical and business assets of the country. >> >> IMHO this is quite late - but at least it's there. The clauses of the policy are the usual "subject to further improvement" though it's a step in some direction (as against the policy paralysis that's been going on the past year). >> >> -C >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracey at traceynaughton.com Wed Jul 3 08:08:28 2013 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 22:08:28 +1000 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Appeals Team 2013 - 2014 / Deadline COB: Monday July 8th 2013 In-Reply-To: <20130703100045.3172ff86@quill> References: <20130703100045.3172ff86@quill> Message-ID: Apologies and thank you Norbert, Please send nominations to either to me or the NomCom Address which is nomcom-at-2013 at lists.igcaucus.org. Either way they will be circulated. Tracey __________________ Tracey Naughton (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, Geneva and Tunis) Communication for Development Consultant Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - Extractive Sector ____________________________________ based in Victoria, Australia land line: +613 54706853 mobile: +61 413 019 707 skype: tnaughton9999 On 03/07/2013, at 6:00 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Tracey Naughton wrote: > >> Please send this statement and your CV before the end of your >> business day on Monday 8th July 2013. > > To which email address should the volunteers send this? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From julian at colnodo.apc.org Wed Jul 3 09:30:16 2013 From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (Julian Casasbuenas G.) Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 08:30:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51D42768.2080501@colnodo.apc.org> Congrats Karen, Anriette and George! El 26/06/13 09:34, Suresh Ramasubramanian escribió: > Congratulations to, among others, George and Anriette, two members > from igcaucus > > I am also glad to see so many people from the earliest days of the > internet in asia, active in the apricot asiapac regional conference, > being inducted this time. > > --srs > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: David Farber > Date: 06/26/2013 7:58 PM (GMT+05:30) > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees > > > Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees > > Influential engineers, activists, and entrepreneurs changed history > through their vision and determination > > Ceremony to be held 3 August in Berlin, Germany > > [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 26 June 2013] The > Internet Society today announced the names of the 32 individuals who > have been selected for induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. > Honored for their groundbreaking contributions to the global Internet, > this year’s inductees comprise some of the world’s most influential > engineers, activists, innovators, and entrepreneurs. > > The Internet Hall of Fame celebrates Internet visionaries, innovators, > and leaders from around the world who believed in the design and > potential of an open Internet and, through their work, helped change > the way we live and work today. > > The 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees are: > > Pioneers Circle – Recognizing individuals who were instrumental in the > early design and development of the Internet: > > David Clark, David Farber, Howard Frank, Kanchana Kanchanasut, J.C.R. > Licklider (posthumous), Bob Metcalfe, Jun Murai, Kees Neggers, Nii > Narku Quaynor, Glenn Ricart, Robert Taylor, Stephen Wolff, Werner Zorn > > Innovators – Recognizing individuals who made outstanding > technological, commercial, or policy advances and helped to expand the > Internet’s reach: > > Marc Andreessen, John Perry Barlow, Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder, > François Flückiger, Stephen Kent, Henning Schulzrinne, Richard > Stallman, Aaron Swartz (posthumous), Jimmy Wales > > Global Connectors – Recognizing individuals from around the world who > have made significant contributions to the global growth and use of > the Internet: > > Karen Banks, Gihan Dias, Anriette Esterhuysen, Steven Goldstein, Teus > Hagen, Ida Holz, Qiheng Hu, Haruhisa Ishida (posthumous), Barry Leiner > (posthumous), George Sadowsky > > “This year’s inductees represent a group of people as diverse and > dynamic as the Internet itself,” noted Internet Society President and > CEO Lynn St. Amour. “As some of the world’s leading thinkers, these > individuals have pushed the boundaries of technological and social > innovation to connect the world and make it a better place. Whether > they were instrumental in the Internet’s early design, expanding its > global reach, or creating new innovations, we all benefit today from > their dedication and foresight.” > Last week, the Internet Society announced plans to change the location > of its 2013 Internet Hall of Fame awards ceremony, originally > scheduled for Istanbul, due to the recent protests and unpredictable > environment. The ceremony is now scheduled for 3 August in Berlin, > Germany and will also be live streamed > at https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/2013internethalloffame. > > More details on the 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees, including > their biographies and photos, can be found > atwww.internethalloffame.org . You > can follow the Internet Hall of Fame on Facebook and on Twitter at > @Internet_HOF. > > About the Internet Hall of Fame > The Internet Hall of Fame is an annual awards program that has been > established by the Internet Society to publicly recognize a > distinguished and select group of leaders and luminaries who have made > significant contributions to the development and advancement of the > global open Internet. More information on the program can be found > at www.internethalloffame.org . > > Archives > | > Modify > > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > [Powered by Listbox] > -- Julian Casasbuenas G. Director Colnodo Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogota, Colombia Tel: 57-1-2324246, Cel. 57-315-3339099 Fax: 57-1-3380264 Twitter @jcasasbuenas www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo Miembro de la Asociacion para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Wed Jul 3 10:13:39 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:13:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees In-Reply-To: <51D42768.2080501@colnodo.apc.org> References: <51D42768.2080501@colnodo.apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Julian! On Jul 3, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Julian Casasbuenas G. wrote: > > Congrats Karen, Anriette and George! > > El 26/06/13 09:34, Suresh Ramasubramanian escribió: >> Congratulations to, among others, George and Anriette, two members from igcaucus >> >> I am also glad to see so many people from the earliest days of the internet in asia, active in the apricot asiapac regional conference, being inducted this time. >> >> --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 y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Thu Jul 4 07:01:21 2013 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu ('Yuliya Morenets') Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 13:01:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] TaC publication-empowerment of vulnerable children online In-Reply-To: <93A12048-9C4B-479A-A0A1-8E4260C221E7@hserus.net> Message-ID: <4e1b4f9d35ed0a6e8875f29729aa3cdf8fc02e76@ssl0.ovh.net> Dear all, I'm happy to share our communication published by the Commonwealth IGF  on the empowerment of vulnerable children online, I hope it will be of any interest to the community. The link: http://www.commonwealthigf.org/blog/risks-and-responsibilities-online-how-to-empower-vulnerable-children-online/ [1] Best regards, YuliyaYuliya Morenets (Ms) TaC-Together against Cybercrime International Links: ------ [1] http://www.commonwealthigf.org/blog/risks-and-responsibilities-online-how-to-empower-vulnerable-children-online/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 4 21:22:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 06:52:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Data privacy and cybersecurity: debate the issues that matter at World 2013 In-Reply-To: <201307042315.BAA0000267739@coral.itu.ch> References: <201307042315.BAA0000267739@coral.itu.ch> Message-ID: <13fac6c9f91.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> So ITU is getting onto this as well Though the panel and conference content at telecom world events is generally abbreviated compared to the massive exhibition / trade show that surrounds it.. --srs (htc one x) --- Forwarded message --- From: itutelecom at itu.int Date: 5 July 2013 4:45:15 AM Subject: Data privacy and cybersecurity: debate the issues that matter at World 2013 To: suresh at hserus.net ITU Telecom World 2013 Email not displaying correctly? Click here to view it in your browser. Cyber criminals; government agencies; your next door neighbour. Who has access to your personal data and what can we do to protect, regulate, and securely store sensitive information?         About Us   Event   Programme   Participate   Bangkok   Partners   Join the debate on Privacy at World 2013 With the issues of privacy &cybersecurity so high on the global agenda at the moment, be sure not to miss key sessions on these at ITU Telecom World 2013, tackling some of the main questions, emerging trends, risks and opportunities within these crucial areas. Interconnected devices are gathering a multitude of different information on individual citizens, spanning everything from where we are, have been, who we have communicated with, how we spend our time and much more. All this information is potentially available to be collected, stored and analysed by business and government. Join sessions such as “How can World Citizens Ensure their Privacy in a Digital World” or “Mobile Security Challenges and Policy in the ASEAN Community” to explore these issues and get to grips with their implications. Find out more on the Event programme.   Top-level speakers focus on change Interactive panel sessions will explore the impact of major industry change, and how this can be harnessed to drive success and address key challenges. Expert perspectives from participants spanning government, business and technology include: Omobola Johnson, Minister for Communications Technology, Nigeria; Richard Beaird, Wiley Rein; Asok Chatterjee, DOSTI; Luis M. Correia, Technical University of Lisbon, INOV-INESC; John Davies, Intel; Jan Ellsberger, Ericsson; Tony Gray, TCCA Critical Communications Broadband Group;  Latif Ladid, IPv6 Forum; Thomas Magedanz, Fraunhofer FOKUS; Jaume Salvat, Aggaros; Rohan Samarajiva, LIRNEasia; Thomas Welter, SFR and Mike Wright, Telstra.             Innovation at World2013 At the heart of the show floor is the InnovationSpace, a dedicated area highlighting the shape of things to come. As well as hosting the winning innovations for the Young Innovators competition, the Lab within the InnovationSpace showcases enables participants to experience the future in action through hands-on demonstrations of cutting-edge applications as diverse as robotics, body area networks or thought-controlled gaming. Make sure your ideas get in the spotlight in our innovation space. Contact us to find out how.   Visibility on a global stage National Pavilions and Industry Stands offer an exceptional opportunity to showcase new technologies, products and services before a uniquely influential global audience. To explore key investment and partnership options. And to network at the highest level. Meanwhile, sponsorship offers top-level targeted visibility, across the event, and we offer a range of dynamic onsite and online options. Contact us to find out more on these opportunities.         Delegate Registration for the 1 conversation that matters opens in August.  To unsubscribe from future ITU Telecom World 2013 emails, click here   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Jul 5 16:30:53 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 17:30:53 -0300 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> July 2013 U.S. STATEMENT ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES IN ADVANCE OF ICANN DURBAN MEETING The United States has listened carefully to the concerns expressed by colleagues on certain geographic strings. It is our sincere hope that individual governments can resolve their concerns on specific geographic strings through agreements on specific safeguards negotiated with the relevant applicants. We encourage all parties to continue to do so leading to Durban. However, in the event the parties cannot reach agreement by the time this matter comes up for decision in the GAC, the United States is willing in Durban to abstain and remain neutral on .shenzen (IDN in Chinese), .persiangulf, .guangzhou (IDN in Chinese), .amazon (and IDNs in Japanese and Chinese), .patagonia, .yun, and .thai, thereby allowing the GAC to present consensus objections on these strings to the Board, if no other government objects. The United States affirms our support for the free flow of information and freedom of expression and does not view sovereignty as a valid basis for objecting to the use of terms, and we have concerns about the effect of such claims on the integrity of the process. We considered that the GAC was of the same mind when it accepted ICANN’s definition of geographic names in February 2011 and agreed that any potential confusion with a geographic name could be mitigated through agreement between the applicant and the concerned government. In addition, the United States is not aware of an international consensus that recognizes inherent governmental rights in geographic terms. Therefore, the choice made in this discrete case does not prejudice future United States positions within the ICANN model or beyond. Recognizing that the current rules for the new gTLD program do not specifically prohibit or condition these strings, we expect the specific issue of how to better address individual government concerns as well as other relevant considerations, including the free flow of information and freedom of expression, in the context of geographic terms, to be considered in the review of the new gTLD program as mandated by the Affirmation of Commitments . This review hopefully will provide guidance as to how better to address this issue in future rounds of new gTLDs. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 6 02:51:48 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 10:51:48 +0400 Subject: [governance] governments-target-tech-giants-tax-avoidance Message-ID: <07f901ce7a15$50b98340$f22c89c0$@gmail.com> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/governments-target-tech-giants-tax-avoidance-draft- 184553496.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jul 6 10:51:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 20:21:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] governments-target-tech-giants-tax-avoidance In-Reply-To: <07f901ce7a15$50b98340$f22c89c0$@gmail.com> References: <07f901ce7a15$50b98340$f22c89c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51D82F01.5070605@itforchange.net> On Saturday 06 July 2013 12:21 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://ca.news.yahoo.com/governments-target-tech-giants-tax-avoidance-draft- > 184553496.html There seem to here be a recognition that inter-jurisdictional tax issues related to global tech companies is a special issue, even such issues also arising for other sectors (like with the case of starbucks in the UK).... This is important.. Secondly, it is neither OECD's nor G 20's (which incidentally included India) job to discuss and decide on such a global issue. This is essentially undemocratic. This kind of thing should be done at a UN body. Also, it is completely against the view India recently took, which was supported by other developing countries in the G 20 like Brazil and China.... To quote from their letter to the UN "In a 'letter from India' (reproduced below), also published on the ECOSOC website, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Joint Secretary of the Central Board of Direct Taxes - part of the Department of Revenue in India's Ministry of Finance - said the OECD Model Tax Convention and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines had been developed 'on the basis of consensus arrived at by the government of 34 countries (all developed countries)'." "It was 'inconceivable', he said, 'as to how a standard developed by government of only 34 countries can be accepted by government of other countries as "standard" of sharing of revenue on international transactions between source and resident country, particularly when it only takes care of the interest of developed countries and has seriously restricted the taxing powers of source country'." "A covering note from India's Ambassador to the UN indicated that the letter conveyed the Indian government's views on the Secretary-General's report. The members of the UN tax committee from China and Brazil 'generally supported' the Indian government's position on this issue,......." (quote ends) http://twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/2012/268/cover04.htm The above is an excerpt from the letter written by the Indian government in context of a report of the UN Secretary General on the issue, which inter alia observed " 'The UN, thanks to its universal membership and its legitimacy, can be a catalyst for increased international cooperation in tax matters for the benefit of developed and developing countries alike. Since the great majority of UN Member States are not members of either OECD or the G20, it is the role of the UN to ensure the active participation of developing countries, including the least developed countries, in international tax cooperation activities, which will ultimately be of benefit to them. /*Only if this level playing field is achieved, can enhanced tax cooperation be truly respected as global.'*//*"*/ (emphasis added) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 6 11:06:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:36:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] governments-target-tech-giants-tax-avoidance In-Reply-To: <51D82F01.5070605@itforchange.net> References: <07f901ce7a15$50b98340$f22c89c0$@gmail.com> <51D82F01.5070605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: You will find that even OECD guidelines are not adopted wholesale by any country that adopts them - they will specifically sign on to parts that they find acceptable, or specifically disclaim any that they don't accept. As for the tax framework language, again - it entirely rests with countries whether or not they are to accept the language in them. Quibbling about the wording's origins is as unproductive an exercise as is possible. In any case, India already signed it in 2012. So this discussion and the quotes of rather jingoistic posturing by a particular offiical appears moot to me. This seems to be yet another occasion where certain officials make certain statements (like Mr.Puri's article you sent across the other day) whereas the actions taken by the relevant ministry - in the form of ministerial statements, treaties signed etc, appear to tell a different story altogether. http://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/india-signs-international-tax-treaty/article2842560.ece --srs (iPad) On 06-Jul-2013, at 20:21, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 06 July 2013 12:21 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/governments-target-tech-giants-tax-avoidance-draft- >> 184553496.html > > There seem to here be a recognition that inter-jurisdictional tax issues related to global tech companies is a special issue, even such issues also arising for other sectors (like with the case of starbucks in the UK).... This is important.. > > > Secondly, it is neither OECD's nor G 20's (which incidentally included India) job to discuss and decide on such a global issue. This is essentially undemocratic. This kind of thing should be done at a UN body. > > Also, it is completely against the view India recently took, which was supported by other developing countries in the G 20 like Brazil and China.... > > To quote from their letter to the UN > > "In a 'letter from India' (reproduced below), also published on the ECOSOC website, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Joint Secretary of the Central Board of Direct Taxes - part of the Department of Revenue in India's Ministry of Finance - said the OECD Model Tax Convention and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines had been developed 'on the basis of consensus arrived at by the government of 34 countries (all developed countries)'." > > "It was 'inconceivable', he said, 'as to how a standard developed by government of only 34 countries can be accepted by government of other countries as "standard" of sharing of revenue on international transactions between source and resident country, particularly when it only takes care of the interest of developed countries and has seriously restricted the taxing powers of source country'." > > "A covering note from India's Ambassador to the UN indicated that the letter conveyed the Indian government's views on the Secretary-General's report. The members of the UN tax committee from China and Brazil 'generally supported' the Indian government's position on this issue,......." > > (quote ends) > http://twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/2012/268/cover04.htm > > The above is an excerpt from the letter written by the Indian government in context of a report of the UN Secretary General on the issue, which inter alia observed > > " 'The UN, thanks to its universal membership and its legitimacy, can be a catalyst for increased international cooperation in tax matters for the benefit of developed and developing countries alike. Since the great majority of UN Member States are not members of either OECD or the G20, it is the role of the UN to ensure the active participation of developing countries, including the least developed countries, in international tax cooperation activities, which will ultimately be of benefit to them. Only if this level playing field is achieved, can enhanced tax cooperation be truly respected as global.'" (emphasis added) > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From exigencygh at gmail.com Sat Jul 6 15:48:57 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 12:48:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online In-Reply-To: <51CFDCB7.8010501@itforchange.net> References: <51CFDCB7.8010501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yes. I was discussing with a friend of mine this evening and we came to a conclusion that the servers should be outside US territory and legislation. On Jun 30, 2013 7:23 AM, "parminder" wrote: > > On Saturday 29 June 2013 01:09 AM, David Sullivan wrote: > > With apologies for cross-posting... > > > http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/transparency-national-security-and-protecting-rights-online > > *Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online* > > *Date: *Friday, June 28, 2013 > > In light of recent events, the Global Network Initiative calls on the > United States and other governments to increase the transparency, > oversight, and accountability of laws, regulations, and actions concerning > communications surveillance. > > *GNI Principles and the rule of law * > > GNI’s Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacyare rooted in international human rights law, while also recognizing that > companies are compelled to obey domestic law in countries where they > operate. > > > One is still unsure about how much was it a 'compulsion' and how much was > it voluntary..... See for instance slide number 5 in this news item > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ > > to quote > > "The seal of Special Source Operations, the NSA term *for alliances with > trusted U.S. companies*. " (emphasis added) > > Now, "trusted US companies" looks like more than compelled US > companies.... isnt it. And this is from official slides, and so obviously > there are deeper US gov - US compaines connections than mere compulsion to > obey domestic laws ... > > Also, I had asked, why when these companies can shift their accounting > purpose headquarters outside US to avoid taxes, why cant they take their > servers outside US to avoid FISA etc. for the sake of us, non US isans... > > parminder > > > > > > GNI does not underestimate the challenge governments face in finding the > appropriate balance between security and privacy and free expression. But > international human rights standards set out narrowly defined circumstances > under which governments may restrict the rights to free expression and > privacy.1 > > GNI is particularly concerned by surveillance programs that restrict the > right to privacy in the context of inadequate legal safeguards. This is a > global problem. Recent statements by U.S. authorities make clear the need > for informed public debate on whether legislative and judicial oversight of > surveillance that occurs entirely in secret is consistent with > international human rights standards and the rule of law. The lack of > transparency in the United States around the Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Court (FISC) interpretations of the FISA Amendments Act and > Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as the inability of companies > to report on the requests they are receiving, make it difficult for > companies operating in the United States to be transparent regarding their > efforts to protect free expression and privacy. > > In light of this we call for three specific actions: > > *1) Create a declassification process for significant legal opinions to > inform public debate and enable oversight of government actions. * > > GNI supports recently proposed legislation to facilitate declassification > of significant legal decisions by the FISC and the FISC Court of Review. We > recognize that unclassified summaries of FISC opinions may be necessary in > some cases but believe that greater declassification will enable informed > public debate as well as improve public oversight of the nature and the > scope of the government’s use of FISA authorities. > > *2) Revise the provisions that restrict discussion of national security > demands. * > > While understanding the need for confidentiality in matters of national > security, GNI is deeply concerned by the nondisclosure obligations imposed > on companies who receive FISA orders and National Security Letters (NSLs). > These letters effectively and perpetually prohibit companies from reporting > even in general terms, after the fact, on the national security demands > they receive. Policymakers should seriously consider reforms that would > require government authorities to make a factual showing to the court to > demonstrate that harm would result from disclosure, before issuance or > renewal of gag orders, or placing a specific time limit on those orders. > > *3) Governments—especially those already committed to protecting human > rights online—should lead by example and report on their own surveillance > requests.* > > GNI commends the 21 governments of the Freedom Online Coalitionfor their commitment to protecting free expression and privacy online and > urges other governments to follow their lead. > > However, the credibility of their efforts ultimately rests on the example > they set through their own domestic laws and policies. Contradictions > between countries’ domestic surveillance policies and practices and their > foreign policy positions on Internet freedom and openness fundamentally > undermine their ability to advocate for other governments to support > Internet freedom. > > GNI urges the governments in the Freedom Online Coalition to report on the > requests they make for electronic communications surveillance. We also urge > them to make it legally possible for companies to report regularly to the > public on the government requests that they receive from law enforcement as > well as national security authorities. Annual reports, such as the U.S. > Wiretap Report and the U.K. Government report of the Interception of > Communications Commissioner offer a starting point for more comprehensive > disclosure of information about the number of national security > surveillance orders made and the number of persons affected. > > *Next steps* > > GNI will advocate strongly with all governments, including the U.S., on > behalf of these reforms, which are a prerequisite for informed global > public debate on the balance between national security and privacy and > freedom of expression rights. We view such transparency reforms as > necessary first steps in examining whether domestic law adequately protects > the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. All governments have a > responsibility to work together with the private sector and civil society > to determine the narrowly defined circumstances (based on internationally > recognized human rights laws and standards) under which surveillance can > take place. We will continue to push for this dialogue and press > governments to meet their obligation to protect the rights of freedom of > expression and privacy for people all over the world. > > 1. Guidance on these circumstances can be found in Articles 17 and 19 of > the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR). > Further specific guidance is available in the Johannesburg Principles on > National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information > . > > -- > David Sullivan > Policy and Communications Director > Global Network Initiative > Office: +1 202 741 5048 > Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 > PGP: 0x60D244AA > @David_MSullivan > > GNI has moved, please note our new address: > 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 > Washington, DC 20036 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 7 00:40:51 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 08:40:51 +0400 Subject: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom Message-ID: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> The NSA's mass and indiscriminate spying on Brazilians As it does in many non-adversarial countries, the surveillance agency is bulk collecting the communications of millions of citizens of Brazil * Share 1258 * * * inShare3 * Email * Glenn Greenwald . * Glenn Greenwald * guardian.co.uk , Saturday 6 July 2013 19.32 EDT * Jump to comments (387) Entrance to NSA headquarters in Fort Meade The National Security Administration headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland. Whistleblower Edward Snowden worked as a data miner for the NSA in Hawaii. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA I've written an article on NSA surveillance for the front page of the Sunday edition of O Globo , the large Brazilian newspaper based in Rio de Janeiro. The article is headlined (translated) "US spied on millions of emails and calls of Brazilians", and I co-wrote it with Globo reporters Roberto Kaz and Jose Casado. The rough translation of the article into English is here . The main page of Globo's website lists related NSA stories: here . As the headline suggests, the crux of the main article details how the NSA has, for years, systematically tapped into the Brazilian telecommunication network and indiscriminately intercepted, collected and stored the email and telephone records of millions of Brazilians. The story follows an article in Der Spiegel last week , written by Laura Poitras and reporters from that paper, detailing the NSA's mass and indiscriminate collection of the electronic communications of millions of Germans. There are many more populations of non-adversarial countries which have been subjected to the same type of mass surveillance net by the NSA: indeed, the list of those which haven't been are shorter than those which have. The claim that any other nation is engaging in anything remotely approaching indiscriminate worldwide surveillance of this sort is baseless. As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the NSA partners with a large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign countries. Those partnerships allow the US company access to those countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories. Both articles are based on top secret documents provided by Edward Snowden; O Globo published several of them. The vast majority of the GuardianUS's revelations thus far have concerned NSA domestic spying: the bulk collection of telephone records , the PRISM program , Obama's presidential directive that authorizes domestic use of cyber-operations, the Boundless Informant data detailing billions of records collected from US systems, the serial falsehoods publicly voiced by top Obama officials about the NSA's surveillance schemes, and most recently, the bulk collection of email and internet metadata records for Americans. Future stories in the GuardianUS will largely continue to focus on the NSA's domestic spying. But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at its own citizens, but all of the world's citizens, has profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US government with boundless power over those to whom it has no accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the world that while the US very minimally values the privacy rights of Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the planet. This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous electronic surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these disclosures. The Guardian's reporting One brief note on the Guardian is merited here: I've been continuously amazed by how intrepid, fearless and committed the Guardian's editors have been in reporting these NSA stories as effectively and aggressively as possible. They have never flinched in reporting these stories, have spared no expense in pursuing them, have refused to allow vague and baseless government assertions to suppress any of the newsworthy revelations, have devoted extraordinary resources to ensure accuracy and potency, and have generally been animated by exactly the kind of adversarial journalistic ethos that has been all too lacking over the last decade or so (see this Atlantic article from yesterday highlighting the role played by the Guardian US's editor-in-chief, Janine Gibson). I don't need to say any of this, but do so only because it's so true and impressive: they deserve a lot of credit for the impact these stories have had. To underscore that: because we're currently working on so many articles involving NSA domestic spying, it would have been weeks, at least, before we would have been able to publish this story about indiscriminate NSA surveillance of Brazilians. Rather than sit on such a newsworthy story - especially at a time when Latin America, for several reasons , is so focused on these revelations - they were enthused about my partnering with O Globo, where it could produce the most impact. In other words, they sacrificed short-term competitive advantage for the sake of the story by encouraging me to write this story with O Globo. I don't think many media outlets would have made that choice, but that's the kind of journalistic virtue that has driven the paper's editors from the start of this story. This has been a Guardian story from the start and will continue to be. Snowden came to us before coming to any other media outlet, and I'll continue to write virtually all NSA stories right in this very space. But the O Globo story will resonate greatly in Brazil and more broadly in Latin America, where most people had no idea that their electronic communications were being collected in bulk by this highly secretive US agency. For more on how the Guardian's editors have overseen the reporting of the NSA stories, see this informative interview on the Charlie Rose Show from last week with Gibson and Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 7 01:28:05 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 17:28:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] Update Message-ID: Dear All, This is a brief update to say that I will be presenting on Cyber Security in the Pacific: Battling the Dragon in the Room at the 12th Pacific Science Inter-Congress on the 9th July, 2013 http://www.psi2013.usp.ac.fj/ Apologies for the cross-posting. This is a courtesy heads-up. If any of you are in the region for this Seminar, be good to meet up and you can email me offline. I will briefly raise the challenges that nation/states face when it comes to dealing with cyber security and privacy. I will be discussing cyber security in the Pacific context. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 03:01:02 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 11:01:02 +0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?RE=3A_=5Bbestbits=5D_=22UN=E2=80=88mus?= =?UTF-8?Q?t_step_in_to_stop_cyber_threats=22?= In-Reply-To: <51D2B860.8000804@itforchange.net> References: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> <04b801ce76f2$8aec0590$a0c410b0$@gmail.com> <51D2B860.8000804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <008b01ce7adf$c3a1ce60$4ae56b20$@gmail.com> Interesting comments from the Indian Minister and we will see what the response to the latest Snowden revelations are from the Brazilian authorities and it would be perhaps useful to begin to move the existing IRP document forward toward some sort of (civil society and other?) global consensus. Mr. Michael Hayden, the former head of the NSA mentioned in an interview with CBS the quite obvious but often forgotten point that the US Constitution and specifically it's privacy provisions (4th amendment) govern/protect US citizens only and is not the basis for any international treaty or pact. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592169/nsa-spying-ally-anger-justified/ Perhaps building on this observation we might consider the process of universalizing this 4th amendment (as for example through the IRP document) while adding measures for ensuring global compliance, transparency and accountability. In this context it is extremely disappointing to see the UN SG has made comments to the Iceland parliament indicating his belief that issues of security should prevail over issues of privacy and thus Mr. Snowden's acts rather than being those of a global patriot were those of someone who is in breach of national laws concerning contracted issues concerning breaches of confidentiality. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-digital-misuse-ban-ki-moon M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 3:24 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] "UN must step in to stop cyber threats" Yes, Michael, beyond hand wringing one must go - as a responsible political group.... I have suggested that the Internet Rights and Principles (IRP) Coalition anchors this as a civil society initiative, building it on its existing IRP document.... Comes up with principles that should govern ownership of personal data, and other legal processes around it. But, this can usefully happen only around an institutional anchor with possible international adoption, and thus fruitfulness.... Like OECD's Internet policy committee seeking to adopt such norms and principles, and civil society making the initial contribution, and then keeping up the pressure. Something like that at a global scale. Internet is a new shared global 'living space', like perhaps none before (or just a few, like macro geo-ecology) ..... We must, with some urgency, come to begin setting the norms and rules for our collective sharing and living in this new space..... There is just no other option, Sooner we realise this, the better. (But of course those who can dominate this space in absence of legitimate norms and rules use all kinds of devices to push back any such progressive move. The problem is that civil society has mostly taken the bait.....) And so we need to figure out not only the possible blueprints of such norms and rules (which themselves beg a platform to take them forward), but also the institutional systems for their fruitful adoption, and, to the extent needed, enforcement.... Like Dominique recently suggested on this list, an International court for digital rights.... Such kind of stuff..... Time we pulled our proverbial head out of the sand..... parminder On Tuesday 02 July 2013 12:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: If this is to move beyond hand wringing into some sort of action then there will need to be some very concerted and high quality intervention from CS. Many of those with an interest in these matters are quite compromised (including various of the larger states) and will have security appartuses which will be very reluctant to support initiatives. Many smaller states with an interest will not have expertise. Perhaps a working group of CS might be struck specifically to be thinking about measures that could be proposed concerning the control of security/privacy interventions at a global level. It would be great I think, (in fact necessary if possible) that this be truly multi-stakeholder with a very very signficant role for the Technical community, associated/sympathetic private sector and sympathetic governments, but I think that CS needs to take the lead in beginning some sort of formulation and the creation of the framework to undertake this work. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >, Subject: [bestbits] "UN must step in to stop cyber threats" Below from an Indian newspaper.... http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130702/commentary-dc-comment/commentary/un%E2%80%88must-step-stop-cyber-threats Now that the chimera of the US as the unique upholder of Internet's values and people's rights on the Internet is so obviously exposed....... and we know that when US calls for a single unified global Internet, and its unique historic role in its governance (read, control), what really does it mean.... parminder from the Deccan Chronicle UN must step in to stop cyber threats DC | 2 hours 7 min ago "This is not the Cold War anymore,” says an upset Germany. This was the mildest of rebukes thus far in the wake of the revelations about the American NSA courtesy Edward Snowden. Spying has been taken into another dimension altogether and the present battle could well be called the “Great Cyber War”. The United States, caught spying, does not have a fig leaf of deniability. This is not just Big Brother watching over its citizens, as portrayed in the landmark novel 1984. The US has crossed all limits and is now spying on its closest friends and thickest allies as well. European Union nations have been forced to undertake security sweeps to ensure their computer systems are not being hacked into and their telephone conversations eavesdropped upon. China, first typecast as the world’s original cyber bad boy, is mockingly pointing to its great rival across the seas to show the world there isn’t just one culprit in modern espionage. If all nations do not get together and sign a treaty to stop cyber espionage, things are only going to get worse for those who love privacy. The United States’ spying on its allies takes the issue beyond the fundamental argument that the threat of terrorism overrides the tenets of privacy and justifies invasion of individual liberties. What the great National Security Agency spy programs of Maryland and Utah have been doing is to spy on governments, their trade, science, military and political secrets. All explanations regarding PRISM and other programs studying only metadata, and not prying into individual interactions over the Internet and telephone, cut no ice with a world that is aghast at the temerity of the most powerful nation in a virtually unipolar world. Much like Germany, India, too, protested so mildly that its voice was hardly heard when US secretary of state John Kerry came calling last week. So protective of his guest was our foreign minister, Salman Khurshid, that the media could not question the visiting dignitary on what his country’s real intentions are in setting up this elaborate $40-billion-plus spying apparatus that snoops on the world. China came through far more aggressively in questioning the United States on all that the world has heard ever since a sub-contractor went on the lam and spilled the beans from Hong Kong with the help of WikiLeaks. If clarity and transparency are the qualities most needed to cool tensions among nations and passions among privacy-seekers, what will really serve society is for the United Nations to pay serious attention to this crisis of confidence and come up with an action plan to mark cyber boundaries and make them as inviolable as possible by common consent. *** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From don at i2.org.nz Sun Jul 7 03:30:07 2013 From: don at i2.org.nz (Don Hollander) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 19:30:07 +1200 Subject: [governance] RE: [Pacific IGF] Update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017301ce7ae3$d1145aa0$733d0fe0$@org.nz> Wow Sala, What a very evocative and controversial and politically charged title. I'm keen to see slides, notes, words to see where you're taking this bold position. Don From: IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com [mailto:IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Sunday, 7 July 2013 5:28 p.m. To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; apralo; At-Large Worldwide; PacNOG; Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society Discussion List; igf-pacific Cc: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: [Pacific IGF] Update Dear All, This is a brief update to say that I will be presenting on Cyber Security in the Pacific: Battling the Dragon in the Room at the 12th Pacific Science Inter-Congress on the 9th July, 2013 http://www.psi2013.usp.ac.fj/ Apologies for the cross-posting. This is a courtesy heads-up. If any of you are in the region for this Seminar, be good to meet up and you can email me offline. I will briefly raise the challenges that nation/states face when it comes to dealing with cyber security and privacy. I will be discussing cyber security in the Pacific context. 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pacific IGF" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to IGF-Pacific+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 7 07:07:27 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 13:07:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?RE=3A_=5Bbestbits=5D_=22UN=E2=80=88mus?= =?UTF-8?Q?t_step_in_to_stop_cyber_threats=22?= In-Reply-To: <008b01ce7adf$c3a1ce60$4ae56b20$@gmail.com> References: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> <04b801ce76f2$8aec0590$a0c410b0$@gmail.com> <51D2B860.8000804@itforchange.net> <008b01ce7adf$c3a1ce60$4ae56b20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130707130727.7e665dbd@quill> Michael Gurstein wrote: > Mr. Michael Hayden, the former head of the NSA mentioned in an > interview with CBS the quite obvious but often forgotten point that > the US Constitution and specifically it's privacy provisions (4th > amendment) govern/protect US citizens only and is not the basis for > any international treaty or pact. > http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592169/nsa-spying-ally-anger-justified/ Yes, unless and until the relevant US supreme court decision [1] is overturned, indeed the US constitution (specifically the 4th amendment) protects only the privacy of citizens and residents of the US. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez I think that there is a point in this that goes beyond this particular fact. The actual text of the relevant part of the US constitution (the 4th amendment) is as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I would suggest that whether “the people” refers to all people everywhere or only to a subset is a question of interpretation. I would further suggest that in view of international human rights law, the appropriate interpretation is to interpret “the people” in this amendment as referring to all people everywhere. Alas the US supreme court has interpreted it differently, assigning greater weight to US national interests than to the human rights of people outside the US. This lack of assigning, in actual legal practice, an appropriately high priority to human rights is a pretty widespread failure of legal systems worldwide. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jul 7 08:08:29 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:38:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom In-Reply-To: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> From the below news item; "As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the /*NSA partners with a large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign countries (emphasis added). */Those partnerships allow the US company access to those countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories." There are basically two large US telecoms AT&T and Verizon... Any such public private partnership for global snooping is very worrisome. parminder On Sunday 07 July 2013 10:10 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > The NSA's mass and indiscriminate spying on Brazilians > > As it does in many non-adversarial countries, the surveillance agency > is bulk collecting the communications of millions of citizens of Brazil > > The National Security Administration headquarters in Fort Meade, > Maryland. Whistleblower Edward Snowden worked as a data miner for the > NSA in Hawaii. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA > > I've written an article on NSA surveillance for the front page of the > Sunday edition of O Globo > , > the large Brazilian newspaper based in Rio de Janeiro. The article is > headlined (translated) "US spied on millions of emails and calls of > Brazilians", and I co-wrote it with Globo reporters Roberto Kaz and > Jose Casado. The rough translation of the article into English is here > . > The main page of Globo's website lists related NSA > stories: here > . > > As the headline suggests, the crux of the main article details how the > NSA has, for years, systematically tapped into the Brazilian > telecommunication network and indiscriminately intercepted, collected > and stored the email and telephone records of millions of Brazilians. > The story follows an article in Der Spiegel last week > , > written by Laura Poitras and reporters from that paper, detailing the > NSA's mass and indiscriminate collection of the electronic > communications of millions of Germans. There are many more populations > of non-adversarial countries which have been subjected to the same > type of mass surveillance net by the NSA: indeed, the list of those > which haven't been are shorter than those which have. The claim that > any other nation is engaging in anything remotely approaching > indiscriminate worldwide surveillance of this sort is baseless. > > As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate > surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part > of the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the NSA partners > with a large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is > currently unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in > the foreign countries. Those partnerships allow the US company access > to those countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is > then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories. Both > articles are based on top secret documents provided by Edward Snowden; > O Globo published several of them. > > The vast majority of the GuardianUS's revelations thus far have > concerned NSA domestic spying: the bulk collection of telephone > records > , > the PRISM program > , > Obama's presidential directive > > that authorizes domestic use of cyber-operations, the Boundless > Informant data > > detailing billions of records collected from US systems, the serial > falsehoods publicly voiced > > by top Obama officials about the NSA's surveillance schemes, and most > recently, the bulk collection of email and internet metadata > > records for Americans. Future stories in the GuardianUS will largely > continue to focus on the NSA's domestic spying. > > But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of > Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - > in complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus > aimed not only at its own citizens, but /all of the world's citizens/, > has profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability > to use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. > It vests the US government with boundless power over those to whom it > has no accountability. It permits allies of the US - including > aggressively oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying > on their citizens' communications. It radically alters the balance of > power between the US and ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends > an unmistakable signal to the world that while the US /very minimally > /values the privacy rights of Americans, it assigns zero value to the > privacy of everyone else on the planet. > > This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous > electronic surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, > extreme, and dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the > world have no idea that all of their telephonic and internet > communications are being collected, stored and analyzed by a distant > government. But that's exactly what is happening, in secrecy and with > virtually no accountability. And it is inexorably growing, all in the > dark. At the very least, it merits public understanding and debate. > That is now possible thanks solely to these disclosures. > > > The Guardian's reporting > > One brief note on the Guardian is merited here: I've been continuously > amazed by how intrepid, fearless and committed the Guardian's editors > have been in reporting these NSA stories as effectively and > aggressively as possible. They have never flinched in reporting these > stories, have spared no expense in pursuing them, have refused to > allow vague and baseless government assertions to suppress any of the > newsworthy revelations, have devoted extraordinary resources to ensure > accuracy and potency, and have generally been animated by exactly the > kind of adversarial journalistic ethos that has been all too lacking > over the last decade or so (see this Atlantic article > > from yesterday highlighting the role played by the Guardian US's > editor-in-chief, Janine Gibson). > > I don't need to say any of this, but do so only because it's so true > and impressive: they deserve a lot of credit for the impact these > stories have had. To underscore that: because we're currently working > on so many articles involving NSA domestic spying, it would have been > weeks, at least, before we would have been able to publish this story > about indiscriminate NSA surveillance of Brazilians. Rather than sit > on such a newsworthy story - especially at a time when Latin America, > for several > > reasons > , > is so focused on these revelations - they were enthused about my > partnering with O Globo, where it could produce the most impact. In > other words, they sacrificed short-term competitive advantage for the > sake of the story by encouraging me to write this story with O Globo. > I don't think many media outlets would have made that choice, but > that's the kind of journalistic virtue that has driven the paper's > editors from the start of this story. > > This has been a Guardian story from the start and will continue to be. > Snowden came to us before coming to any other media outlet, and I'll > continue to write virtually all NSA stories right in this very space. > But the O Globo story will resonate greatly in Brazil and more broadly > in Latin America, where most people had no idea that their electronic > communications were being collected in bulk by this highly secretive > US agency. For more on how the Guardian's editors have overseen the > reporting of the NSA stories, see this informative interview on the > Charlie Rose Show from last week with Gibson and Guardian > editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jul 7 09:25:23 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 09:25:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom In-Reply-To: <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: When you use a mobile line in Brazil and come to the US, your roaming displays VERIZON. On Jul 7, 2013 8:09 AM, "parminder" wrote: > From the below news item; > > > "As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate > surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of > the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the *NSA partners with > a large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently > unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign > countries (emphasis added). *Those partnerships allow the US company > access to those countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is > then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories." > > There are basically two large US telecoms AT&T and Verizon... Any such > public private partnership for global snooping is very worrisome. > > parminder > > > On Sunday 07 July 2013 10:10 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > The NSA's mass and indiscriminate spying on Brazilians**** > > As it does in many non-adversarial countries, the surveillance agency is > bulk collecting the communications of millions of citizens of Brazil**** > **** > > The National Security Administration headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland. > Whistleblower Edward Snowden worked as a data miner for the NSA in Hawaii. > Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA**** > > I've written an article on NSA surveillance for the front page of the > Sunday edition of O Globo, > the large Brazilian newspaper based in Rio de Janeiro. The article is > headlined (translated) "US spied on millions of emails and calls of > Brazilians", and I co-wrote it with Globo reporters Roberto Kaz and Jose > Casado. The rough translation of the article into English is here. > The main page of Globo's website lists related NSAstories: > here .**** > > As the headline suggests, the crux of the main article details how the NSA > has, for years, systematically tapped into the Brazilian telecommunication > network and indiscriminately intercepted, collected and stored the email > and telephone records of millions of Brazilians. The story follows an > article in Der Spiegel last week, > written by Laura Poitras and reporters from that paper, detailing the NSA's > mass and indiscriminate collection of the electronic communications of > millions of Germans. There are many more populations of non-adversarial > countries which have been subjected to the same type of mass surveillance > net by the NSA: indeed, the list of those which haven't been are shorter > than those which have. The claim that any other nation is engaging in > anything remotely approaching indiscriminate worldwide surveillance of this > sort is baseless.**** > > As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate > surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of > the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the NSA partners with a > large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently > unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign > countries. Those partnerships allow the US company access to those > countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is then exploited to > direct traffic to the NSA's repositories. Both articles are based on top > secret documents provided by Edward Snowden; O Globo published several of > them.**** > > The vast majority of the GuardianUS's revelations thus far have concerned > NSA domestic spying: the bulk collection of telephone records, > the PRISM program, > Obama's presidential directivethat authorizes domestic use of cyber-operations, the Boundless > Informant datadetailing billions of records collected from US systems, the serial > falsehoods publicly voicedby top Obama officials about the NSA's surveillance schemes, and most > recently, the bulk collection of email and internet metadatarecords for Americans. Future stories in the GuardianUS will largely > continue to focus on the NSA's domestic spying.**** > > But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of Americans > aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in complete > secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at > its own citizens, but *all of the world's citizens*, has profound > consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the internet > with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US > government with boundless power over those to whom it has no > accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively > oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' > communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and > ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the > world that while the US *very minimally *values the privacy rights of > Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the > planet.**** > > This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous electronic > surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and > dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea > that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being > collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly > what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it > is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public > understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these > disclosures.**** > The Guardian's reporting**** > > One brief note on the Guardian is merited here: I've been continuously > amazed by how intrepid, fearless and committed the Guardian's editors have > been in reporting these NSA stories as effectively and aggressively as > possible. They have never flinched in reporting these stories, have spared > no expense in pursuing them, have refused to allow vague and baseless > government assertions to suppress any of the newsworthy revelations, have > devoted extraordinary resources to ensure accuracy and potency, and have > generally been animated by exactly the kind of adversarial journalistic > ethos that has been all too lacking over the last decade or so (see this > Atlantic articlefrom yesterday highlighting the role played by the Guardian US's > editor-in-chief, Janine Gibson).**** > > I don't need to say any of this, but do so only because it's so true and > impressive: they deserve a lot of credit for the impact these stories have > had. To underscore that: because we're currently working on so many > articles involving NSA domestic spying, it would have been weeks, at least, > before we would have been able to publish this story about indiscriminate > NSA surveillance of Brazilians. Rather than sit on such a newsworthy story > - especially at a time when Latin America, for several > reasons, > is so focused on these revelations - they were enthused about my partnering > with O Globo, where it could produce the most impact. In other words, they > sacrificed short-term competitive advantage for the sake of the story by > encouraging me to write this story with O Globo. I don't think many media > outlets would have made that choice, but that's the kind of journalistic > virtue that has driven the paper's editors from the start of this story. * > *** > > This has been a Guardian story from the start and will continue to be. > Snowden came to us before coming to any other media outlet, and I'll > continue to write virtually all NSA stories right in this very space. But > the O Globo story will resonate greatly in Brazil and more broadly in Latin > America, where most people had no idea that their electronic communications > were being collected in bulk by this highly secretive US agency. For more > on how the Guardian's editors have overseen the reporting of the NSA > stories, see this informative interview on the Charlie Rose Show from last > week with Gibson and Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger: **** > > ** ** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 7 09:33:00 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 01:33:00 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Pacific IGF] Update In-Reply-To: <017301ce7ae3$d1145aa0$733d0fe0$@org.nz> References: <017301ce7ae3$d1145aa0$733d0fe0$@org.nz> Message-ID: <0FF95772-7BD7-4B31-ACAD-81B284E3F0B4@gmail.com> Hi Don, I will upload the presentation or snippets and share the link with you when I am done presenting. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Jul 7, 2013, at 7:30 PM, "Don Hollander" wrote: > Wow Sala, What a very evocative and controversial and politically charged title. > > I’m keen to see slides, notes, words to see where you’re taking this bold position. > > Don > > From: IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com [mailto:IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Sent: Sunday, 7 July 2013 5:28 p.m. > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; apralo; At-Large Worldwide; PacNOG; Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society Discussion List; igf-pacific > Cc: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Subject: [Pacific IGF] Update > > Dear All, > > This is a brief update to say that I will be presenting on Cyber Security in the Pacific: Battling the Dragon in the Room at the 12th Pacific Science Inter-Congress on the 9th July, 2013 http://www.psi2013.usp.ac.fj/ > > Apologies for the cross-posting. This is a courtesy heads-up. If any of you are in the region for this Seminar, be good to meet up and you can email me offline. > > I will briefly raise the challenges that nation/states face when it comes to dealing with cyber security and privacy. I will be discussing cyber security in the Pacific context. > > 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 > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pacific IGF" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to IGF-Pacific+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pacific IGF" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to IGF-Pacific+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 7 11:21:29 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:51:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom In-Reply-To: References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0182660A-E580-4168-9A03-84447AE1E1A4@hserus.net> It depends on which carrier you use in brazil, who they have roaming agreements with and which of the carriers they have roaming agreements with has a stronger signal in the area you happen to be in. Could well be AT&T, t mobile or whatever else --srs (iPad) On 07-Jul-2013, at 18:55, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > When you use a mobile line in Brazil and come to the US, your roaming displays VERIZON. > > On Jul 7, 2013 8:09 AM, "parminder" wrote: >> From the below news item; >> >> >> "As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the NSA partners with a large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign countries (emphasis added). Those partnerships allow the US company access to those countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories." >> There are basically two large US telecoms AT&T and Verizon... Any such public private partnership for global snooping is very worrisome. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Sunday 07 July 2013 10:10 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> The NSA's mass and indiscriminate spying on Brazilians >>> >>> As it does in many non-adversarial countries, the surveillance agency is bulk collecting the communications of millions of citizens of Brazil >>> >>> The National Security Administration headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland. Whistleblower Edward Snowden worked as a data miner for the NSA in Hawaii. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA >>> >>> I've written an article on NSA surveillance for the front page of the Sunday edition of O Globo, the large Brazilian newspaper based in Rio de Janeiro. The article is headlined (translated) "US spied on millions of emails and calls of Brazilians", and I co-wrote it with Globo reporters Roberto Kaz and Jose Casado. The rough translation of the article into English is here. The main page of Globo's website lists related NSA stories: here. >>> >>> As the headline suggests, the crux of the main article details how the NSA has, for years, systematically tapped into the Brazilian telecommunication network and indiscriminately intercepted, collected and stored the email and telephone records of millions of Brazilians. The story follows an article in Der Spiegel last week, written by Laura Poitras and reporters from that paper, detailing the NSA's mass and indiscriminate collection of the electronic communications of millions of Germans. There are many more populations of non-adversarial countries which have been subjected to the same type of mass surveillance net by the NSA: indeed, the list of those which haven't been are shorter than those which have. The claim that any other nation is engaging in anything remotely approaching indiscriminate worldwide surveillance of this sort is baseless. >>> >>> As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the NSA partners with a large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign countries. Those partnerships allow the US company access to those countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories. Both articles are based on top secret documents provided by Edward Snowden; O Globo published several of them. >>> >>> The vast majority of the GuardianUS's revelations thus far have concerned NSA domestic spying: the bulk collection of telephone records, the PRISM program, Obama's presidential directive that authorizes domestic use of cyber-operations, the Boundless Informant data detailing billions of records collected from US systems, the serial falsehoods publicly voiced by top Obama officials about the NSA's surveillance schemes, and most recently, the bulk collection of email and internet metadata records for Americans. Future stories in the GuardianUS will largely continue to focus on the NSA's domestic spying. >>> >>> But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at its own citizens, but all of the world's citizens, has profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US government with boundless power over those to whom it has no accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the world that while the US very minimally values the privacy rights of Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the planet. >>> >>> This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous electronic surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these disclosures. >>> >>> The Guardian's reporting >>> >>> One brief note on the Guardian is merited here: I've been continuously amazed by how intrepid, fearless and committed the Guardian's editors have been in reporting these NSA stories as effectively and aggressively as possible. They have never flinched in reporting these stories, have spared no expense in pursuing them, have refused to allow vague and baseless government assertions to suppress any of the newsworthy revelations, have devoted extraordinary resources to ensure accuracy and potency, and have generally been animated by exactly the kind of adversarial journalistic ethos that has been all too lacking over the last decade or so (see this Atlantic article from yesterday highlighting the role played by the Guardian US's editor-in-chief, Janine Gibson). >>> >>> I don't need to say any of this, but do so only because it's so true and impressive: they deserve a lot of credit for the impact these stories have had. To underscore that: because we're currently working on so many articles involving NSA domestic spying, it would have been weeks, at least, before we would have been able to publish this story about indiscriminate NSA surveillance of Brazilians. Rather than sit on such a newsworthy story - especially at a time when Latin America, for several reasons, is so focused on these revelations - they were enthused about my partnering with O Globo, where it could produce the most impact. In other words, they sacrificed short-term competitive advantage for the sake of the story by encouraging me to write this story with O Globo. I don't think many media outlets would have made that choice, but that's the kind of journalistic virtue that has driven the paper's editors from the start of this story. >>> >>> This has been a Guardian story from the start and will continue to be. Snowden came to us before coming to any other media outlet, and I'll continue to write virtually all NSA stories right in this very space. But the O Globo story will resonate greatly in Brazil and more broadly in Latin America, where most people had no idea that their electronic communications were being collected in bulk by this highly secretive US agency. For more on how the Guardian's editors have overseen the reporting of the NSA stories, see this informative interview on the Charlie Rose Show from last week with Gibson and Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger: >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jul 7 12:21:24 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 12:21:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom In-Reply-To: <0182660A-E580-4168-9A03-84447AE1E1A4@hserus.net> References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> <0182660A-E580-4168-9A03-84447AE1E1A4@hserus.net> Message-ID: Vivo, Claro, TIM and Oi have agreements with Verizon. : ) On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It depends on which carrier you use in brazil, who they have roaming > agreements with and which of the carriers they have roaming agreements with > has a stronger signal in the area you happen to be in. Could well be AT&T, > t mobile or whatever else > > --srs (iPad) > > On 07-Jul-2013, at 18:55, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: > > When you use a mobile line in Brazil and come to the US, your roaming > displays VERIZON. > On Jul 7, 2013 8:09 AM, "parminder" wrote: > >> From the below news item; >> >> >> "As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate >> surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of >> the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the *NSA partners with >> a large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently >> unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign >> countries (emphasis added). *Those partnerships allow the US company >> access to those countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is >> then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories." >> >> There are basically two large US telecoms AT&T and Verizon... Any such >> public private partnership for global snooping is very worrisome. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Sunday 07 July 2013 10:10 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> The NSA's mass and indiscriminate spying on Brazilians**** >> >> As it does in many non-adversarial countries, the surveillance agency is >> bulk collecting the communications of millions of citizens of Brazil**** >> **** >> >> The National Security Administration headquarters in Fort Meade, >> Maryland. Whistleblower Edward Snowden worked as a data miner for the NSA >> in Hawaii. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA**** >> >> I've written an article on NSA surveillance for the front page of the >> Sunday edition of O Globo, >> the large Brazilian newspaper based in Rio de Janeiro. The article is >> headlined (translated) "US spied on millions of emails and calls of >> Brazilians", and I co-wrote it with Globo reporters Roberto Kaz and Jose >> Casado. The rough translation of the article into English is here. >> The main page of Globo's website lists related NSAstories: >> here .**** >> >> As the headline suggests, the crux of the main article details how the >> NSA has, for years, systematically tapped into the Brazilian >> telecommunication network and indiscriminately intercepted, collected and >> stored the email and telephone records of millions of Brazilians. The story >> follows an article in Der Spiegel last week, >> written by Laura Poitras and reporters from that paper, detailing the NSA's >> mass and indiscriminate collection of the electronic communications of >> millions of Germans. There are many more populations of non-adversarial >> countries which have been subjected to the same type of mass surveillance >> net by the NSA: indeed, the list of those which haven't been are shorter >> than those which have. The claim that any other nation is engaging in >> anything remotely approaching indiscriminate worldwide surveillance of this >> sort is baseless.**** >> >> As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate >> surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of >> the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the NSA partners with a >> large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently >> unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign >> countries. Those partnerships allow the US company access to those >> countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is then exploited to >> direct traffic to the NSA's repositories. Both articles are based on top >> secret documents provided by Edward Snowden; O Globo published several of >> them.**** >> >> The vast majority of the GuardianUS's revelations thus far have concerned >> NSA domestic spying: the bulk collection of telephone records, >> the PRISM program, >> Obama's presidential directivethat authorizes domestic use of cyber-operations, the Boundless >> Informant datadetailing billions of records collected from US systems, the serial >> falsehoods publicly voicedby top Obama officials about the NSA's surveillance schemes, and most >> recently, the bulk collection of email and internet metadatarecords for Americans. Future stories in the GuardianUS will largely >> continue to focus on the NSA's domestic spying.**** >> >> But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of >> Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in >> complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not >> only at its own citizens, but *all of the world's citizens*, has >> profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the >> internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US >> government with boundless power over those to whom it has no >> accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively >> oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' >> communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and >> ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the >> world that while the US *very minimally *values the privacy rights of >> Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the >> planet.**** >> >> This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous electronic >> surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and >> dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea >> that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being >> collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly >> what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it >> is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public >> understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these >> disclosures.**** >> The Guardian's reporting**** >> >> One brief note on the Guardian is merited here: I've been continuously >> amazed by how intrepid, fearless and committed the Guardian's editors have >> been in reporting these NSA stories as effectively and aggressively as >> possible. They have never flinched in reporting these stories, have spared >> no expense in pursuing them, have refused to allow vague and baseless >> government assertions to suppress any of the newsworthy revelations, have >> devoted extraordinary resources to ensure accuracy and potency, and have >> generally been animated by exactly the kind of adversarial journalistic >> ethos that has been all too lacking over the last decade or so (see this >> Atlantic articlefrom yesterday highlighting the role played by the Guardian US's >> editor-in-chief, Janine Gibson).**** >> >> I don't need to say any of this, but do so only because it's so true and >> impressive: they deserve a lot of credit for the impact these stories have >> had. To underscore that: because we're currently working on so many >> articles involving NSA domestic spying, it would have been weeks, at least, >> before we would have been able to publish this story about indiscriminate >> NSA surveillance of Brazilians. Rather than sit on such a newsworthy story >> - especially at a time when Latin America, for several >> reasons, >> is so focused on these revelations - they were enthused about my partnering >> with O Globo, where it could produce the most impact. In other words, they >> sacrificed short-term competitive advantage for the sake of the story by >> encouraging me to write this story with O Globo. I don't think many media >> outlets would have made that choice, but that's the kind of journalistic >> virtue that has driven the paper's editors from the start of this story. >> **** >> >> This has been a Guardian story from the start and will continue to be. >> Snowden came to us before coming to any other media outlet, and I'll >> continue to write virtually all NSA stories right in this very space. But >> the O Globo story will resonate greatly in Brazil and more broadly in Latin >> America, where most people had no idea that their electronic communications >> were being collected in bulk by this highly secretive US agency. For more >> on how the Guardian's editors have overseen the reporting of the NSA >> stories, see this informative interview on the Charlie Rose Show from last >> week with Gibson and Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger: **** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 12:24:53 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 12:24:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom In-Reply-To: References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> <0182660A-E580-4168-9A03-84447AE1E1A4@hserus.net> Message-ID: Some of them have agreements with others. E.g.: Tim with AT&T. But the only one which is related to all of them at the same time is Verizon. On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > Vivo, Claro, TIM and Oi have agreements with Verizon. : ) > > > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> It depends on which carrier you use in brazil, who they have roaming >> agreements with and which of the carriers they have roaming agreements with >> has a stronger signal in the area you happen to be in. Could well be AT&T, >> t mobile or whatever else >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 07-Jul-2013, at 18:55, Diego Rafael Canabarro < >> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> When you use a mobile line in Brazil and come to the US, your roaming >> displays VERIZON. >> On Jul 7, 2013 8:09 AM, "parminder" wrote: >> >>> From the below news item; >>> >>> >>> "As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate >>> surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of >>> the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the *NSA partners >>> with a large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is >>> currently unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the >>> foreign countries (emphasis added). *Those partnerships allow the US >>> company access to those countries' telecommunications systems, and that >>> access is then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories." >>> >>> There are basically two large US telecoms AT&T and Verizon... Any such >>> public private partnership for global snooping is very worrisome. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Sunday 07 July 2013 10:10 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> The NSA's mass and indiscriminate spying on Brazilians**** >>> >>> As it does in many non-adversarial countries, the surveillance agency is >>> bulk collecting the communications of millions of citizens of Brazil**** >>> **** >>> >>> The National Security Administration headquarters in Fort Meade, >>> Maryland. Whistleblower Edward Snowden worked as a data miner for the NSA >>> in Hawaii. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA**** >>> >>> I've written an article on NSA surveillance for the front page of the >>> Sunday edition of O Globo, >>> the large Brazilian newspaper based in Rio de Janeiro. The article is >>> headlined (translated) "US spied on millions of emails and calls of >>> Brazilians", and I co-wrote it with Globo reporters Roberto Kaz and Jose >>> Casado. The rough translation of the article into English is here. >>> The main page of Globo's website lists related NSAstories: >>> here .**** >>> >>> As the headline suggests, the crux of the main article details how the >>> NSA has, for years, systematically tapped into the Brazilian >>> telecommunication network and indiscriminately intercepted, collected and >>> stored the email and telephone records of millions of Brazilians. The story >>> follows an article in Der Spiegel last week, >>> written by Laura Poitras and reporters from that paper, detailing the NSA's >>> mass and indiscriminate collection of the electronic communications of >>> millions of Germans. There are many more populations of non-adversarial >>> countries which have been subjected to the same type of mass surveillance >>> net by the NSA: indeed, the list of those which haven't been are shorter >>> than those which have. The claim that any other nation is engaging in >>> anything remotely approaching indiscriminate worldwide surveillance of this >>> sort is baseless.**** >>> >>> As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate >>> surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of >>> the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the NSA partners with a >>> large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently >>> unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign >>> countries. Those partnerships allow the US company access to those >>> countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is then exploited to >>> direct traffic to the NSA's repositories. Both articles are based on top >>> secret documents provided by Edward Snowden; O Globo published several of >>> them.**** >>> >>> The vast majority of the GuardianUS's revelations thus far have >>> concerned NSA domestic spying: the bulk collection of telephone records, >>> the PRISM program, >>> Obama's presidential directivethat authorizes domestic use of cyber-operations, the Boundless >>> Informant datadetailing billions of records collected from US systems, the serial >>> falsehoods publicly voicedby top Obama officials about the NSA's surveillance schemes, and most >>> recently, the bulk collection of email and internet metadatarecords for Americans. Future stories in the GuardianUS will largely >>> continue to focus on the NSA's domestic spying.**** >>> >>> But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of >>> Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in >>> complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not >>> only at its own citizens, but *all of the world's citizens*, has >>> profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the >>> internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US >>> government with boundless power over those to whom it has no >>> accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively >>> oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' >>> communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and >>> ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the >>> world that while the US *very minimally *values the privacy rights of >>> Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the >>> planet.**** >>> >>> This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous >>> electronic surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, >>> and dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no >>> idea that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being >>> collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly >>> what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it >>> is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public >>> understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these >>> disclosures.**** >>> The Guardian's reporting**** >>> >>> One brief note on the Guardian is merited here: I've been continuously >>> amazed by how intrepid, fearless and committed the Guardian's editors have >>> been in reporting these NSA stories as effectively and aggressively as >>> possible. They have never flinched in reporting these stories, have spared >>> no expense in pursuing them, have refused to allow vague and baseless >>> government assertions to suppress any of the newsworthy revelations, have >>> devoted extraordinary resources to ensure accuracy and potency, and have >>> generally been animated by exactly the kind of adversarial journalistic >>> ethos that has been all too lacking over the last decade or so (see this >>> Atlantic articlefrom yesterday highlighting the role played by the Guardian US's >>> editor-in-chief, Janine Gibson).**** >>> >>> I don't need to say any of this, but do so only because it's so true and >>> impressive: they deserve a lot of credit for the impact these stories have >>> had. To underscore that: because we're currently working on so many >>> articles involving NSA domestic spying, it would have been weeks, at least, >>> before we would have been able to publish this story about indiscriminate >>> NSA surveillance of Brazilians. Rather than sit on such a newsworthy story >>> - especially at a time when Latin America, for several >>> reasons, >>> is so focused on these revelations - they were enthused about my partnering >>> with O Globo, where it could produce the most impact. In other words, they >>> sacrificed short-term competitive advantage for the sake of the story by >>> encouraging me to write this story with O Globo. I don't think many media >>> outlets would have made that choice, but that's the kind of journalistic >>> virtue that has driven the paper's editors from the start of this story. >>> **** >>> >>> This has been a Guardian story from the start and will continue to be. >>> Snowden came to us before coming to any other media outlet, and I'll >>> continue to write virtually all NSA stories right in this very space. But >>> the O Globo story will resonate greatly in Brazil and more broadly in Latin >>> America, where most people had no idea that their electronic communications >>> were being collected in bulk by this highly secretive US agency. For more >>> on how the Guardian's editors have overseen the reporting of the NSA >>> stories, see this informative interview on the Charlie Rose Show from last >>> week with Gibson and Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger: **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Jul 7 12:59:07 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 13:59:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom In-Reply-To: References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> <0182660A-E580-4168-9A03-84447AE1E1A4@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51D99E5B.80903@cafonso.ca> As if which one sells data to which is really relevant... :) All of them are participating in this, as all major operators in BR are transnationals with strong ties with European and US govs. Vivo = Telefónica -> Spain Claro -> Mexico-based with strong US ties TIM -> Telecom Italia Oi -> Portugal Telecom GVT = Vivendi -> France This "gang of five" owns nearly all cell phone services and nearly all main fiber backbones. Due to the privatization process of late 90s conducted by a lousy neoliberal government, Brazil even sold all its satellites, including the ones used for national security and the military. So whatever decision is made by telcos on how to supply NSA (or any other gov agency) with data, is not made here in Brazil. --c.a. On 07/07/2013 01:21 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Vivo, Claro, TIM and Oi have agreements with Verizon. : ) > > > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > It depends on which carrier you use in brazil, who they have roaming > agreements with and which of the carriers they have roaming > agreements with has a stronger signal in the area you happen to be > in. Could well be AT&T, t mobile or whatever else > > --srs (iPad) > > On 07-Jul-2013, at 18:55, Diego Rafael Canabarro > > wrote: > >> When you use a mobile line in Brazil and come to the US, your >> roaming displays VERIZON. >> >> On Jul 7, 2013 8:09 AM, "parminder" > > wrote: >> >> From the below news item; >> >> >> "As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, >> indiscriminate surveillance aimed at populations of >> friendly foreign nations is part of the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" >> program. Under that program, the /*NSA partners with a >> large US telecommunications company, the identity of which >> is currently unknown, and that US company then partners >> with telecoms in the foreign countries (emphasis added). >> */Those partnerships allow the US company access to those >> countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is >> then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories." >> >> There are basically two large US telecoms AT&T and Verizon... >> Any such public private partnership for global snooping is >> very worrisome. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Sunday 07 July 2013 10:10 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> >>> The NSA's mass and indiscriminate spying on Brazilians____ >>> >>> As it does in many non-adversarial countries, the >>> surveillance agency is bulk collecting the communications of >>> millions of citizens of Brazil____ >>> >>> ____ >>> >>> The National Security Administration headquarters in Fort >>> Meade, Maryland. Whistleblower Edward Snowden worked as a >>> data miner for the NSA in Hawaii. Photograph: Jim Lo >>> Scalzo/EPA____ >>> >>> I've written an article on NSA surveillance for the front >>> page of the Sunday edition of O Globo >>> , >>> the large Brazilian newspaper based in Rio de Janeiro. The >>> article is headlined (translated) "US spied on millions of >>> emails and calls of Brazilians", and I co-wrote it with Globo >>> reporters Roberto Kaz and Jose Casado. The rough translation >>> of the article into English is here >>> . >>> The main page of Globo's website lists related NSA >>> stories: here >>> .____ >>> >>> As the headline suggests, the crux of the main article >>> details how the NSA has, for years, systematically tapped >>> into the Brazilian telecommunication network and >>> indiscriminately intercepted, collected and stored the email >>> and telephone records of millions of Brazilians. The story >>> follows an article in Der Spiegel last week >>> , >>> written by Laura Poitras and reporters from that paper, >>> detailing the NSA's mass and indiscriminate collection of the >>> electronic communications of millions of Germans. There are >>> many more populations of non-adversarial countries which have >>> been subjected to the same type of mass surveillance net by >>> the NSA: indeed, the list of those which haven't been are >>> shorter than those which have. The claim that any other >>> nation is engaging in anything remotely approaching >>> indiscriminate worldwide surveillance of this sort is >>> baseless.____ >>> >>> As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, >>> indiscriminate surveillance aimed at populations of friendly >>> foreign nations is part of the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. >>> Under that program, the NSA partners with a large US >>> telecommunications company, the identity of which is >>> currently unknown, and that US company then partners with >>> telecoms in the foreign countries. Those partnerships allow >>> the US company access to those countries' telecommunications >>> systems, and that access is then exploited to direct traffic >>> to the NSA's repositories. Both articles are based on top >>> secret documents provided by Edward Snowden; O Globo >>> published several of them.____ >>> >>> The vast majority of the GuardianUS's revelations thus far >>> have concerned NSA domestic spying: the bulk collection of >>> telephone records >>> , >>> the PRISM program >>> , >>> Obama's presidential directive >>> >>> that authorizes domestic use of cyber-operations, the >>> Boundless Informant data >>> >>> detailing billions of records collected from US systems, the >>> serial falsehoods publicly voiced >>> >>> by top Obama officials about the NSA's surveillance schemes, >>> and most recently, the bulk collection of email and internet >>> metadata >>> >>> records for Americans. Future stories in the GuardianUS will >>> largely continue to focus on the NSA's domestic spying.____ >>> >>> But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights >>> of Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US >>> government - in complete secrecy - is constructing a >>> ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at its own >>> citizens, but /all of the world's citizens/, has profound >>> consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to >>> use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal >>> security. It vests the US government with boundless power >>> over those to whom it has no accountability. It permits >>> allies of the US - including aggressively oppressive ones - >>> to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' >>> communications. It radically alters the balance of power >>> between the US and ordinary citizens of the world. And it >>> sends an unmistakable signal to the world that while the US >>> /very minimally /values the privacy rights of Americans, it >>> assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the >>> planet.____ >>> >>> This development - the construction of a worldwide, >>> ubiquitous electronic surveillance apparatus - is >>> self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and dangerous. It >>> deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea >>> that all of their telephonic and internet communications are >>> being collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. >>> But that's exactly what is happening, in secrecy and with >>> virtually no accountability. And it is inexorably growing, >>> all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public >>> understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely >>> to these disclosures.____ >>> >>> >>> The Guardian's reporting____ >>> >>> One brief note on the Guardian is merited here: I've been >>> continuously amazed by how intrepid, fearless and committed >>> the Guardian's editors have been in reporting these NSA >>> stories as effectively and aggressively as possible. They >>> have never flinched in reporting these stories, have spared >>> no expense in pursuing them, have refused to allow vague and >>> baseless government assertions to suppress any of the >>> newsworthy revelations, have devoted extraordinary resources >>> to ensure accuracy and potency, and have generally been >>> animated by exactly the kind of adversarial journalistic >>> ethos that has been all too lacking over the last decade or >>> so (see this Atlantic article >>> >>> from yesterday highlighting the role played by the Guardian >>> US's editor-in-chief, Janine Gibson).____ >>> >>> I don't need to say any of this, but do so only because it's >>> so true and impressive: they deserve a lot of credit for the >>> impact these stories have had. To underscore that: because >>> we're currently working on so many articles involving NSA >>> domestic spying, it would have been weeks, at least, before >>> we would have been able to publish this story about >>> indiscriminate NSA surveillance of Brazilians. Rather than >>> sit on such a newsworthy story - especially at a time when >>> Latin America, for several >>> >>> reasons >>> , >>> is so focused on these revelations - they were enthused about >>> my partnering with O Globo, where it could produce the most >>> impact. In other words, they sacrificed short-term >>> competitive advantage for the sake of the story by >>> encouraging me to write this story with O Globo. I don't >>> think many media outlets would have made that choice, but >>> that's the kind of journalistic virtue that has driven the >>> paper's editors from the start of this story. ____ >>> >>> This has been a Guardian story from the start and will >>> continue to be. Snowden came to us before coming to any other >>> media outlet, and I'll continue to write virtually all NSA >>> stories right in this very space. But the O Globo story will >>> resonate greatly in Brazil and more broadly in Latin America, >>> where most people had no idea that their electronic >>> communications were being collected in bulk by this highly >>> secretive US agency. For more on how the Guardian's editors >>> have overseen the reporting of the NSA stories, see this >>> informative interview on the Charlie Rose Show from last week >>> with Gibson and Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger: ____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jul 7 13:47:41 2013 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:47:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom In-Reply-To: References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1373219261.28686.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi Folks, The damage of the post 20/11 bla blab la is going beyond understandable limits. Though industrial espionage and peer to peer spying have always been used by States to have an edge over the others, we strongly believe the Internet was created to serve humanity positively. The Internet is a multi Stakeholder common resource (good) with a special model of governance. We all understand the right of any modern nation to combat terrorism by fostering homeland security using all possible means. Anyone one in such a fragile position might be tempted to do the same, but then, let it be done using private resources or official support from partners, and not just illegally taking advantage of a public resource to engage individual activities. We will always support the international community in combating enemies of civilization whenever and wherever need be. To do this ideally, we need to be free. Internet freedom is fundamental for the next generation of users. “If you spy on everyone, it simply means you need no one” I know someone will be saying”… Its time to get my own root servers moving…”   ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué  Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué Douala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76  (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission ________________________________ De : Diego Rafael Canabarro À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Envoyé le : Dimanche 7 juillet 2013 14h25 Objet : Re: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom When you use a mobile line in Brazil and come to the US, your roaming displays VERIZON. On Jul 7, 2013 8:09 AM, "parminder" wrote: From the below news item; > > > >>"As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the NSA partners with a large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign countries (emphasis added). Those partnerships allow the US company access to those countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories."There are basically two large US telecoms AT&T and Verizon... Any such public private partnership for global snooping is very worrisome. > >parminder > > > >On Sunday 07 July 2013 10:10 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >The NSA's mass and indiscriminate spying on Brazilians >>As it does in many non-adversarial countries, the surveillance agency is bulk collecting the communications of millions of citizens of Brazil >>The National Security Administration headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland. Whistleblower Edward Snowden worked as a data miner for the NSA in Hawaii. Photograph: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA >>I've written an article on NSA surveillance for the front page of the Sunday edition of O Globo, the large Brazilian newspaper based in Rio de Janeiro. The article is headlined (translated) "US spied on millions of emails and calls of Brazilians", and I co-wrote it with Globo reporters Roberto Kaz and Jose Casado. The rough translation of the article into English is here. The main page of Globo's website lists related NSA stories: here. >>As the headline suggests, the crux of the main article details how the NSA has, for years, systematically tapped into the Brazilian telecommunication network and indiscriminately intercepted, collected and stored the email and telephone records of millions of Brazilians. The story follows an article in Der Spiegel last week, written by Laura Poitras and reporters from that paper, detailing the NSA's mass and indiscriminate collection of the electronic communications of millions of Germans. There are many more populations of non-adversarial countries which have been subjected to the same type of mass surveillance net by the NSA: indeed, the list of those which haven't been are shorter than those which have. The claim that any other nation is engaging in anything remotely approaching indiscriminate worldwide surveillance of this sort is baseless. >>As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is part of the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the NSA partners with a large US telecommunications company, the identity of which is currently unknown, and that US company then partners with telecoms in the foreign countries. Those partnerships allow the US company access to those countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is then exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories. Both articles are based on top secret documents provided by Edward Snowden; O Globo published several of them. >>The vast majority of the GuardianUS's revelations thus far have concerned NSA domestic spying: the bulk collection of telephone records, the PRISM program, Obama's presidential directive that authorizes domestic use of cyber-operations, the Boundless Informant data detailing billions of records collected from US systems, the serial falsehoods publicly voiced by top Obama officials about the NSA's surveillance schemes, and most recently, the bulk collection of email and internet metadata records for Americans. Future stories in the GuardianUS will largely continue to focus on the NSA's domestic spying. >>But contrary to what some want to suggest, the privacy rights of Americans aren't the only ones that matter. That the US government - in complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at its own citizens, but all of the world's citizens, has profound consequences. It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security. It vests the US government with boundless power over those to whom it has no accountability. It permits allies of the US - including aggressively oppressive ones - to benefit from indiscriminate spying on their citizens' communications. It radically alters the balance of power between the US and ordinary citizens of the world. And it sends an unmistakable signal to the world that while the US very minimally values the privacy rights of Americans, it assigns zero value to the privacy of everyone else on the planet. >>This development - the construction of a worldwide, ubiquitous electronic surveillance apparatus - is self-evidently newsworthy, extreme, and dangerous. It deserves transparency. People around the world have no idea that all of their telephonic and internet communications are being collected, stored and analyzed by a distant government. But that's exactly what is happening, in secrecy and with virtually no accountability. And it is inexorably growing, all in the dark. At the very least, it merits public understanding and debate. That is now possible thanks solely to these disclosures. >>The Guardian's reporting >>One brief note on the Guardian is merited here: I've been continuously amazed by how intrepid, fearless and committed the Guardian's editors have been in reporting these NSA stories as effectively and aggressively as possible. They have never flinched in reporting these stories, have spared no expense in pursuing them, have refused to allow vague and baseless government assertions to suppress any of the newsworthy revelations, have devoted extraordinary resources to ensure accuracy and potency, and have generally been animated by exactly the kind of adversarial journalistic ethos that has been all too lacking over the last decade or so (see this Atlantic article from yesterday highlighting the role played by the Guardian US's editor-in-chief, Janine Gibson). >>I don't need to say any of this, but do so only because it's so true and impressive: they deserve a lot of credit for the impact these stories have had. To underscore that: because we're currently working on so many articles involving NSA domestic spying, it would have been weeks, at least, before we would have been able to publish this story about indiscriminate NSA surveillance of Brazilians. Rather than sit on such a newsworthy story - especially at a time when Latin America, for several reasons, is so focused on these revelations - they were enthused about my partnering with O Globo, where it could produce the most impact. In other words, they sacrificed short-term competitive advantage for the sake of the story by encouraging me to write this story with O Globo. I don't think many media outlets would have made that choice, but that's the kind of journalistic virtue that has driven the paper's editors from the start of this story. >>This has been a Guardian story from the start and will continue to be. Snowden came to us before coming to any other media outlet, and I'll continue to write virtually all NSA stories right in this very space. But the O Globo story will resonate greatly in Brazil and more broadly in Latin America, where most people had no idea that their electronic communications were being collected in bulk by this highly secretive US agency. For more on how the Guardian's editors have overseen the reporting of the NSA stories, see this informative interview on the Charlie Rose Show from last week with Gibson and Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger: >>  > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 18:04:44 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:04:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?RE=3A_=5Bbestbits=5D_=22UN=E2=80=88mus?= =?UTF-8?Q?t_step_in_to_stop_cyber_threats=22?= In-Reply-To: <008b01ce7adf$c3a1ce60$4ae56b20$@gmail.com> References: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> <04b801ce76f2$8aec0590$a0c410b0$@gmail.com> <51D2B860.8000804@itforchange.net> <008b01ce7adf$c3a1ce60$4ae56b20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <40AA3ED1-8FA0-4E31-9BDB-055B469B014B@gmail.com> I am not sure the approach of "we might consider the process of universalizing this 4th amendment" will be well received by nationals of other countries.. "I am being spied on and now they want me to accept their rights..." I do think we have a strong framework of human rights internationally and constitutional rights in many countries that could be fit better as a framework and as the rhetoric C Sent from my iPhone On Jul 7, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > we might consider the process of universalizing this 4th amendment -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 18:07:38 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:07:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online In-Reply-To: References: <51CFDCB7.8010501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Ah! So, you probably should also stand against free flow of information language that is present in ALL recent trade agreements. Including Korus, and in the TPP... Btw... I would love to see more debate around trade agreements in this list. Tons of biding language regarding Internet governance - jurisdiction, IP, ISP liability, access to K, free flow, servers placement etc etc etc Sent from my iPhone On Jul 6, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > Yes. I was discussing with a friend of mine this evening and we came to a conclusion that the servers should be outside US territory and legislation. > > On Jun 30, 2013 7:23 AM, "parminder" wrote: >> >> On Saturday 29 June 2013 01:09 AM, David Sullivan wrote: >>> With apologies for cross-posting... >>> >>> http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/transparency-national-security-and-protecting-rights-online >>> >>> Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online >>> >>> Date: Friday, June 28, 2013 >>> >>> In light of recent events, the Global Network Initiative calls on the United States and other governments to increase the transparency, oversight, and accountability of laws, regulations, and actions concerning communications surveillance. >>> >>> GNI Principles and the rule of law >>> >>> GNI’s Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy are rooted in international human rights law, while also recognizing that companies are compelled to obey domestic law in countries where they operate. >> >> One is still unsure about how much was it a 'compulsion' and how much was it voluntary..... See for instance slide number 5 in this news item http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ >> >> to quote >> >> "The seal of Special Source Operations, the NSA term for alliances with trusted U.S. companies. " (emphasis added) >> >> Now, "trusted US companies" looks like more than compelled US companies.... isnt it. And this is from official slides, and so obviously there are deeper US gov - US compaines connections than mere compulsion to obey domestic laws ... >> >> Also, I had asked, why when these companies can shift their accounting purpose headquarters outside US to avoid taxes, why cant they take their servers outside US to avoid FISA etc. for the sake of us, non US isans... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >>> GNI does not underestimate the challenge governments face in finding the appropriate balance between security and privacy and free expression. But international human rights standards set out narrowly defined circumstances under which governments may restrict the rights to free expression and privacy.1 >>> >>> GNI is particularly concerned by surveillance programs that restrict the right to privacy in the context of inadequate legal safeguards. This is a global problem. Recent statements by U.S. authorities make clear the need for informed public debate on whether legislative and judicial oversight of surveillance that occurs entirely in secret is consistent with international human rights standards and the rule of law. The lack of transparency in the United States around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) interpretations of the FISA Amendments Act and Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as the inability of companies to report on the requests they are receiving, make it difficult for companies operating in the United States to be transparent regarding their efforts to protect free expression and privacy. >>> >>> In light of this we call for three specific actions: >>> >>> 1) Create a declassification process for significant legal opinions to inform public debate and enable oversight of government actions. >>> >>> GNI supports recently proposed legislation to facilitate declassification of significant legal decisions by the FISC and the FISC Court of Review. We recognize that unclassified summaries of FISC opinions may be necessary in some cases but believe that greater declassification will enable informed public debate as well as improve public oversight of the nature and the scope of the government’s use of FISA authorities. >>> >>> 2) Revise the provisions that restrict discussion of national security demands. >>> >>> While understanding the need for confidentiality in matters of national security, GNI is deeply concerned by the nondisclosure obligations imposed on companies who receive FISA orders and National Security Letters (NSLs). These letters effectively and perpetually prohibit companies from reporting even in general terms, after the fact, on the national security demands they receive. Policymakers should seriously consider reforms that would require government authorities to make a factual showing to the court to demonstrate that harm would result from disclosure, before issuance or renewal of gag orders, or placing a specific time limit on those orders. >>> >>> 3) Governments—especially those already committed to protecting human rights online—should lead by example and report on their own surveillance requests. >>> >>> GNI commends the 21 governments of the Freedom Online Coalition for their commitment to protecting free expression and privacy online and urges other governments to follow their lead. >>> >>> However, the credibility of their efforts ultimately rests on the example they set through their own domestic laws and policies. Contradictions between countries’ domestic surveillance policies and practices and their foreign policy positions on Internet freedom and openness fundamentally undermine their ability to advocate for other governments to support Internet freedom. >>> >>> GNI urges the governments in the Freedom Online Coalition to report on the requests they make for electronic communications surveillance. We also urge them to make it legally possible for companies to report regularly to the public on the government requests that they receive from law enforcement as well as national security authorities. Annual reports, such as the U.S. Wiretap Report and the U.K. Government report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner offer a starting point for more comprehensive disclosure of information about the number of national security surveillance orders made and the number of persons affected. >>> >>> Next steps >>> >>> GNI will advocate strongly with all governments, including the U.S., on behalf of these reforms, which are a prerequisite for informed global public debate on the balance between national security and privacy and freedom of expression rights. We view such transparency reforms as necessary first steps in examining whether domestic law adequately protects the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. All governments have a responsibility to work together with the private sector and civil society to determine the narrowly defined circumstances (based on internationally recognized human rights laws and standards) under which surveillance can take place. We will continue to push for this dialogue and press governments to meet their obligation to protect the rights of freedom of expression and privacy for people all over the world. >>> >>> 1. Guidance on these circumstances can be found in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR). Further specific guidance is available in the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David Sullivan >>> Policy and Communications Director >>> Global Network Initiative >>> Office: +1 202 741 5048 >>> Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 >>> PGP: 0x60D244AA >>> @David_MSullivan >>> >>> GNI has moved, please note our new address: >>> 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 >>> Washington, DC 20036 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 7 21:15:14 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 06:45:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom In-Reply-To: <1373219261.28686.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> <1373219261.28686.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Root servers unfortunately have no bearing on monitoring implemented by connectivity providers --srs (iPad) On 07-Jul-2013, at 23:17, International Ivission wrote: > Hi Folks, > The damage of the post 20/11 bla blab la is going beyond understandable limits. Though industrial espionage and peer to peer spying have always been used by States to have an edge over the others, we strongly believe the Internet was created to serve humanity positively. > > The Internet is a multi Stakeholder common resource (good) with a special model of governance. We all understand the right of any modern nation to combat terrorism by fostering homeland security using all possible means. Anyone one in such a fragile position might be tempted to do the same, but then, let it be done using private resources or official support from partners, and not just illegally taking advantage of a public resource to engage individual activities. > > We will always support the international community in combating enemies of civilization whenever and wherever need be. To do this ideally, we need to be free. > Internet freedom is fundamental for the next generation of users. “If you spy on everyone, it simply means you need no one” > I know someone will be saying”… Its time to get my own root servers moving…” > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 8 03:15:56 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:15:56 +0800 Subject: [governance] Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online In-Reply-To: References: <51CFDCB7.8010501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51DA672C.1060906@ciroap.org> On 08/07/13 06:07, Carolina wrote: > Ah! > So, you probably should also stand against free flow of information > language that is present in ALL recent trade agreements. > Including Korus, and in the TPP... > Btw... I would love to see more debate around trade agreements in this > list. > Tons of biding language regarding Internet governance - jurisdiction, > IP, ISP liability, access to K, free flow, servers placement etc etc etc Yes, that is where the action is. I am presenting a paper on the impact of PRISM on the free flow of information provisions of the TPP, at the next TPP round in Malaysia: http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/prism_presentation.pdf Carol you'll notice I included a quote from you on the last slide! -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chand at connect.com.fj Sun Jul 7 13:38:50 2013 From: chand at connect.com.fj (Rakesh Chand) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 05:38:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] RE: [PICISOC] Update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94E57E0AF33E43538CA801B2ED28BDAB@ChandFujitsu> All the best Sala, Looking forward to some more interesting reading after your presentation! All have a very pleasant day! RC _____ From: picisoc-bounces at picisoc.org [mailto:picisoc-bounces at picisoc.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Sunday, 7 July 2013 5:28 p.m. To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; apralo; At-Large Worldwide; PacNOG; Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society Discussion List; igf-pacific Cc: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: [PICISOC] Update Dear All, This is a brief update to say that I will be presenting on Cyber Security in the Pacific: Battling the Dragon in the Room at the 12th Pacific Science Inter-Congress on the 9th July, 2013 http://www.psi2013.usp.ac.fj/ Apologies for the cross-posting. This is a courtesy heads-up. If any of you are in the region for this Seminar, be good to meet up and you can email me offline. I will briefly raise the challenges that nation/states face when it comes to dealing with cyber security and privacy. I will be discussing cyber security in the Pacific context. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avaiki.nius at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 03:07:42 2013 From: avaiki.nius at gmail.com (avaiki - jason brown) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 20:07:42 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: [PICISOC] [Pacific IGF] Update In-Reply-To: <017301ce7ae3$d1145aa0$733d0fe0$@org.nz> References: <017301ce7ae3$d1145aa0$733d0fe0$@org.nz> Message-ID: *indeed,* and the welcoming responses from those seeking to further PICISOC, ay? . . . jason brown . . . On 7 July 2013 20:30, Don Hollander wrote: > Wow Sala, What a very evocative and controversial and politically charged > title.**** > > ** ** > > I’m keen to see slides, notes, words to see where you’re taking this bold > position.**** > > ** ** > > Don**** > > ** ** > > *From:* IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com [mailto:IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com] > *On Behalf Of *Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Sent:* Sunday, 7 July 2013 5:28 p.m. > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; apralo; At-Large Worldwide; PacNOG; > Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society Discussion List; igf-pacific > *Cc:* Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Subject:* [Pacific IGF] Update**** > > ** ** > > Dear All,**** > > ** ** > > This is a brief update to say that I will be presenting on Cyber Security > in the Pacific: Battling the Dragon in the Room at the 12th Pacific Science > Inter-Congress on the 9th July, 2013 http://www.psi2013.usp.ac.fj/**** > > ** ** > > Apologies for the cross-posting. This is a courtesy heads-up. If any of > you are in the region for this Seminar, be good to meet up and you can > email me offline.**** > > ** ** > > I will briefly raise the challenges that nation/states face when it comes > to dealing with cyber security and privacy. I will be discussing cyber > security in the Pacific context.**** > > ** ** > > 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**** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Pacific IGF" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to IGF-Pacific+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > > _______________________________________________ > PICISOC members discussion mailing list > PICISOC at picisoc.org > Unsubscription and other options: > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/picisoc > PICISOC Web site: > http://www.picisoc.org/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 10:52:43 2013 From: carlton.samuels at gmail.com (Carlton Samuels) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 09:52:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [At-Large] Update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You go, Sala! I'm sure you'll bring needful insights to the participants. Please share proceedings at your convenience. Warmest, -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > This is a brief update to say that I will be presenting on Cyber Security > in the Pacific: Battling the Dragon in the Room at the 12th Pacific Science > Inter-Congress on the 9th July, 2013 http://www.psi2013.usp.ac.fj/ > > Apologies for the cross-posting. This is a courtesy heads-up. If any of you > are in the region for this Seminar, be good to meet up and you can email me > offline. > > I will briefly raise the challenges that nation/states face when it comes > to dealing with cyber security and privacy. I will be discussing cyber > security in the Pacific context. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marknoumea at yahoo.com Mon Jul 8 02:42:03 2013 From: marknoumea at yahoo.com (Mark Perkins) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:42:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: [PICISOC] [pacnog] [Pacific IGF] Update In-Reply-To: References: <017301ce7ae3$d1145aa0$733d0fe0$@org.nz> <0FF95772-7BD7-4B31-ACAD-81B284E3F0B4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1373265723.93620.YahooMailNeo@web162404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> An interesting related article... Agreements with private companies protect U.S. access to cables’ data for surveillance Mark ________________________________ From: Etuate Cocker To: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: PacNOG ; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro ; "IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com" ; "" ; Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society Discussion List ; apralo ; At-Large Worldwide Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [PICISOC] [pacnog] [Pacific IGF] Update Hi Sala, Please post in the abstract of your presentation to the list. Etuate Cocker Freelance CMS Developer 10 Ngatira place, Manurewa, Auckland. CCNA, CCAI, CEH - Cisco ID : CSCO11620114 - EC Council ID - ECC021378 Skype number +(61)280-147294 ext 881 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Hi Don, > > >I will upload the presentation or snippets and share the link with you when I am done presenting. > > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >Sent from my iPad > >On Jul 7, 2013, at 7:30 PM, "Don Hollander" wrote: > > >Wow Sala, What a very evocative and controversial and politically charged title. >>  >>I’m keen to see slides, notes, words to see where you’re taking this bold position. >>  >>Don >>  >>From:IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com [mailto:IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>Sent: Sunday, 7 July 2013 5:28 p.m. >>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; apralo; At-Large Worldwide; PacNOG; Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society Discussion List; igf-pacific >>Cc: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >>Subject: [Pacific IGF] Update >>  >>Dear All, >>  >>This is a brief update to say that I will be presenting on Cyber Security in the Pacific: Battling the Dragon in the Room at the 12th Pacific Science Inter-Congress on the 9th July, 2013 http://www.psi2013.usp.ac.fj/ >>  >>Apologies for the cross-posting. This is a courtesy heads-up. If any of you are in the region for this Seminar, be good to meet up and you can email me offline. >>  >>I will briefly raise the challenges that nation/states face when it comes to dealing with cyber security and privacy. I will be discussing cyber security in the Pacific context. >>  >>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 >>  >>  >>  >>-- >>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pacific IGF" group. >>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to IGF-Pacific+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>  >>  -- >>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pacific IGF" group. >>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to IGF-Pacific+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>  >>  >> >_______________________________________________ >pacnog mailing list >pacnog at pacnog.org >http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/pacnog > > _______________________________________________ PICISOC members discussion mailing list PICISOC at picisoc.org Unsubscription and other options: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/picisoc PICISOC Web site: http://www.picisoc.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From eduade.2001 at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 18:05:42 2013 From: eduade.2001 at gmail.com (Etuate Cocker) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:05:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [pacnog] [Pacific IGF] Update In-Reply-To: <0FF95772-7BD7-4B31-ACAD-81B284E3F0B4@gmail.com> References: <017301ce7ae3$d1145aa0$733d0fe0$@org.nz> <0FF95772-7BD7-4B31-ACAD-81B284E3F0B4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Sala, Please post in the abstract of your presentation to the list. Etuate Cocker Freelance CMS Developer 10 Ngatira place, Manurewa, Auckland. CCNA, CCAI, CEH - Cisco ID : CSCO11620114 - EC Council ID - ECC021378 Skype number +(61)280-147294 ext 881 On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Don, > > I will upload the presentation or snippets and share the link with you > when I am done presenting. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 7:30 PM, "Don Hollander" wrote: > > Wow Sala, What a very evocative and controversial and politically charged > title.**** > > ** ** > > I’m keen to see slides, notes, words to see where you’re taking this bold > position.**** > > ** ** > > Don**** > > ** ** > > *From:* IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com [mailto:IGF-Pacific at googlegroups.com] > *On Behalf Of *Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Sent:* Sunday, 7 July 2013 5:28 p.m. > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; apralo; At-Large Worldwide; PacNOG; > Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society Discussion List; igf-pacific > *Cc:* Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Subject:* [Pacific IGF] Update**** > > ** ** > > Dear All,**** > > ** ** > > This is a brief update to say that I will be presenting on Cyber Security > in the Pacific: Battling the Dragon in the Room at the 12th Pacific Science > Inter-Congress on the 9th July, 2013 http://www.psi2013.usp.ac.fj/**** > > ** ** > > Apologies for the cross-posting. This is a courtesy heads-up. If any of > you are in the region for this Seminar, be good to meet up and you can > email me offline.**** > > ** ** > > I will briefly raise the challenges that nation/states face when it comes > to dealing with cyber security and privacy. I will be discussing cyber > security in the Pacific context.**** > > ** ** > > 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**** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Pacific IGF" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to IGF-Pacific+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Pacific IGF" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to IGF-Pacific+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pacnog mailing list > pacnog at pacnog.org > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/pacnog > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 8 04:36:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:36:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] root servers and privacy violations (was Re: NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom) In-Reply-To: References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> <1373219261.28686.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20130708103625.241fa022@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Root servers unfortunately have no bearing on monitoring implemented > by connectivity providers Actually I'd say that that is a fortunate rather than an unfortunate fact. Separation of concerns is a good thing. Talking about DNS resolution and privacy violations, what's the current situation in regard to fixing the “privacy leaks in the domain name system” issue? (Is there anything more recent on this than the 2009 paper of Yanbin Lu and Gene Tsudik http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2472 ? ) Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Jul 8 04:44:27 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:44:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom In-Reply-To: <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51DA7BEB.5030808@digsys.bg> On 07.07.13 15:08, parminder wrote: > From the below news item; > > > "As those two articles detail, all of this bulk, indiscriminate > surveillance aimed at populations of friendly foreign nations is > part of the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" program. Under that program, the > /*NSA partners with a large US telecommunications company, the > identity of which is currently unknown, and that US company then > partners with telecoms in the foreign countries (emphasis added). > */Those partnerships allow the US company access to those > countries' telecommunications systems, and that access is then > exploited to direct traffic to the NSA's repositories." > > There are basically two large US telecoms AT&T and Verizon... Any such > public private partnership for global snooping is very worrisome. The morale: never trust any telecom. They are forced to cooperate, or their monopoly licenses are at risk. So much about free market. Most of those will happily do it "for free". Might be, time for the ITU to dissolve, or just transform into interoperability standards making body.... wishful thinking, this. No government (read: secret services bureau) will ever let this happen. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 8 05:21:39 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 14:51:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] root servers and privacy violations (was Re: NSA penetrates Brazilian telecom) In-Reply-To: <20130708103625.241fa022@quill> References: <001d01ce7acc$2f2983d0$8d7c8b70$@gmail.com> <51D95A3D.20207@itforchange.net> <1373219261.28686.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <20130708103625.241fa022@quill> Message-ID: <4046CA0F-43EB-47E6-9DD3-6A200A603272@hserus.net> Well yes, fortunately would be a very good word to use. As for that work - I am afraid I haven't seen it, nor have I seen more recent work in this area. Scalability and practicality of developing a working model aren't particularly trivial to achieve is all I will say after a quick glance through the paper. --srs (iPad) On 08-Jul-2013, at 14:06, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Root servers unfortunately have no bearing on monitoring implemented >> by connectivity providers > > Actually I'd say that that is a fortunate rather than an unfortunate > fact. > > Separation of concerns is a good thing. > > Talking about DNS resolution and privacy violations, what's the current > situation in regard to fixing the “privacy leaks in the domain name > system” issue? (Is there anything more recent on this than the 2009 > paper of Yanbin Lu and Gene Tsudik http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2472 ? ) > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 8 06:18:42 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:18:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: It makes sense to me that national sovereignty does not provide for any exclusive rights over the use of names of places or words of a language, even if that language is only spoken in one country on earth. However, the people living in those places (eg, cities) should have a say in one form or the other, to the extent that the name at hand unambiguously or presumptively designates one such place or that the TLD string is meant to do so. In other terms, this should be the business of the local community, not the central government. On the other hand, I wish the US government recognizes that what cannot be granted to national sovereignty in terms of gTLD strings cannot and should not be granted to intellectual property rights (IPR) holders. There was a time when registries eemed to claim a sort of PR over the meaning of the TLD they're managing, or IPR stakeholders generally over that of their ASCII domain names, and tried to preempt ownership of any future IDN versions. I don't even understand how we got there, since I thought registries do not have property rights per se over (or ownership of) the gTLD. While I exited that debate some time ago, I hope this is a settled matter that IPR holders over a given string of characters in a given jurisdiction do not automatically enjoy an exclusive right over the intended meaning of that string in all jurisdictions, and thus, over all versions of it in any scripts at the same domain name level. The global nature of the Internet notwithstanding, the ultimate sources of actual rights are still off line. Mawaki On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > July 2013 > > U.S. STATEMENT ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES IN ADVANCE OF ICANN DURBAN MEETING > > The United States has listened carefully to the concerns expressed by > colleagues on certain geographic strings. It is our sincere hope that > individual governments can resolve their concerns on specific geographic > strings through agreements on specific safeguards negotiated with the > relevant applicants. We encourage all parties to continue to do so > leading to Durban. However, in the event the parties cannot reach > agreement by the time this matter comes up for decision in the GAC, the > United States is willing in Durban to abstain and remain neutral on > .shenzen (IDN in Chinese), .persiangulf, .guangzhou (IDN in Chinese), > .amazon (and IDNs in Japanese and Chinese), .patagonia, .yun, and .thai, > thereby allowing the GAC to present consensus objections on these > strings to the Board, if no other government objects. > > The United States affirms our support for the free flow of information > and freedom of expression and does not view sovereignty as a valid basis > for objecting to the use of terms, and we have concerns about the effect > of such claims on the integrity of the process. We considered that the > GAC was of the same mind when it accepted ICANN’s definition of > geographic names in February 2011 and agreed that any potential > confusion with a geographic name could be mitigated through agreement > between the applicant and the concerned government. In addition, the > United States is not aware of an international consensus that recognizes > inherent governmental rights in geographic terms. Therefore, the choice > made in this discrete case does not prejudice future United States > positions within the ICANN model or beyond. > > Recognizing that the current rules for the new gTLD program do not > specifically prohibit or condition these strings, we expect the specific > issue of how to better address individual government concerns as well as > other relevant considerations, including the free flow of information > and freedom of expression, in the context of geographic terms, to be > considered in the review of the new gTLD program as mandated by the > Affirmation of Commitments . This review hopefully will provide guidance > as to how better to address this issue in future rounds of new gTLDs. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From raul at lacnic.net Mon Jul 8 10:10:55 2013 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:10:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=5Bbestbits=5D_=22UN=E2=80=88must_step?= =?UTF-8?Q?_in_to_stop_cyber_threats=22?= In-Reply-To: <40AA3ED1-8FA0-4E31-9BDB-055B469B014B@gmail.com> References: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net> <04b801ce76f2$8aec0590$a0c410b0$@gmail.com> <51D2B860.8000804@itforchange.net> <008b01ce7adf$c3a1ce60$4ae56b20$@gmail.com> <40AA3ED1-8FA0-4E31-9BDB-055B469B014B@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Carolina. This issue is not about US constitution or US laws. Raúl El 07/07/2013, a las 19:04, Carolina escribió: > I am not sure the approach of "we might consider the process of universalizing this 4th amendment" will be well received by nationals of other countries.. > "I am being spied on and now they want me to accept their rights..." > I do think we have a strong framework of human rights internationally and constitutional rights in many countries that could be fit better as a framework and as the rhetoric > C > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 7, 2013, at 3:01 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> we might consider the process of universalizing this 4th amendment > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t Raul Twitter @raulecheberria -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 8 10:26:52 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:26:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA surveillance: Criminal complaint in Switzerland Message-ID: <20130708162652.13206084@quill> As it is likely that like in many (almost all?) other countries, NSA has conducted surveillance activities in regard to communications in Switzerland, and those surveillance activities are illegal under local law, we (an alliance of civil society persons and groups) have filed a criminal complaint. Here are some (German language) media articles: http://www.netzwoche.ch/de-CH/News/2013/07/08/Digitale-Gesellschaft-erstattet-Anzeige-gegen-Unbekannt.aspx http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/digital/digitale-gesellschaft-strafanzeige-bundesanwaltschaft-prism-1.18112991 Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Jul 8 13:30:21 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 17:30:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24430FE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Mawaki Here is my take on the NTIA statement: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/07/06/the-ntias-new-policy-of-appeasement/ >From my point of view, I would reject BOTH the trademark community's insistence that they own generic words in the domain name space because they are trademarked somewhere, AND your belief that local communities "own" names (which may appear in dozens of other places or could be used in ways which do not create confusion or violate any legal rights). Those views are perfectly symmetrical and are based on the nominal fallacy described below. So much discussion of this issue is founded on the assumption that the exclusive occupation of a domain name string also means exclusive ownership or occupation of a market or region semantically referenced by a string. This assumption is obviously false: registration of the string .BOOK does NOT give anyone any special market control over books, or over the use of the word 'book' in thousands of other contexts, and the same goes for "Amazon" or geographic names. Let people use words freely and creatively and unless specific, well-bounded rights are violated, e.g. via deliberate deception or misleading uses, From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:19 AM To: Internet Governance; Carlos A. Afonso Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... It makes sense to me that national sovereignty does not provide for any exclusive rights over the use of names of places or words of a language, even if that language is only spoken in one country on earth. However, the people living in those places (eg, cities) should have a say in one form or the other, to the extent that the name at hand unambiguously or presumptively designates one such place or that the TLD string is meant to do so. In other terms, this should be the business of the local community, not the central government. On the other hand, I wish the US government recognizes that what cannot be granted to national sovereignty in terms of gTLD strings cannot and should not be granted to intellectual property rights (IPR) holders. There was a time when registries eemed to claim a sort of PR over the meaning of the TLD they're managing, or IPR stakeholders generally over that of their ASCII domain names, and tried to preempt ownership of any future IDN versions. I don't even understand how we got there, since I thought registries do not have property rights per se over (or ownership of) the gTLD. While I exited that debate some time ago, I hope this is a settled matter that IPR holders over a given string of characters in a given jurisdiction do not automatically enjoy an exclusive right over the intended meaning of that string in all jurisdictions, and thus, over all versions of it in any scripts at the same domain name level. The global nature of the Internet notwithstanding, the ultimate sources of actual rights are still off line. Mawaki -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 8 17:38:04 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 21:38:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24430FE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24430FE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, Thanks for the link. First off, allow me to clarify that I wasn't recognizing any privileges for national government to object and block geographic name-related domain name applications. As a matter of fact, I referred in my message to people and local community vs. central government. By that, I mean dwellers, associations, organizations, businesses, etc. appealing directly to ICANN in its bottom-up processes (no central government representation is required here.) I do think those grassroots stakeholders need to be heard and careful attention should be paid to their concerns. I do not think at all that they "own" the name of their location, but just that a case can be made --and should be heard-- that they might have a higher stake in that name so far (say, before it becomes a TLD) than most of of us. It's up to ICANN to put in place the relevant criteria against which to evaluate those objections (BTW, I thought there was something like this as part of the new gTLD policy when it began to take shape back in 2006/07?) For instance, when we see the string "THAI" or hear the sound of that word --particularly in a geographical context-- most of us are most likely to think of something that relates to the country called Thailand. The country itself already has its ccTLD, therefore I wouldn't expect the queen of Thailand and the government under her rule to claim any particular privilege over who should get to operate a gTLD by that name and how. A famous Thai restaurant located in NYC or a Buddhist organization located in Bangkok may equally legitimately be the applicant for .THAI gTLD, whether the restaurant owner is a Thai or a US citizen, etc. But whoever is the applicant, any entity that can claim an established connection with the country Thailand and its cultures should have their objections, if any, specifically and clearly addressed by ICANN before authorizing the gTLD into operation. (Please note: this is just an example, partly made up for explaining purposes as a model can be --nothing to do with the actual .THAI application.) Now, this (the issue of geographic locations as gTLDs) will be complicated a little further in the case of existing trademarks by those names. First of all, there is a fundamental difference that you don't seem to take into account in your reflection in the blog post. A registered trademark is jurisdiction-bound and does neither automatically nor legally preclude someone registering the same name somewhere else (even though it might be fair to assume that the existence of a trademark that is globally recognizable under the same name might be taken into account in the registration vetting process at other places where the trademark might not have been locally registered.) Internet domain names are quite different in that once you register them or are granted the TLD operation, no other person can use them as domain names at the same level anywhere else in the world/Internet. So the comparison between trademark registration process and rights to domain name registration process and rights is not that simple or straightforward. For the Internet, the constituency is virtually global or at least global by default, which is not the case for IPR regimes. So it clearly makes sense that you have a potential for more objections in the former than in the latter. So because of the above, even if the people from the Amazon or Patagonia never had plans to make use of those names, they may still be awakened by the idea that someone else may have as much control over it and make as much money with it as Verisign has over and makes with dotcom. I am not sure whether such motivation for objection is necessarily despicable; rather, I could understand why the concerned communities might want to have a say in the way control is exerted over the name they share and were known by across the world before the Internet (keep in mind that for many many people around the world outside US, Amazon is still a forest in South America.) Again, all what I'm saying here is that those concerns cannot be dismissed and need serious attention for some arrangement to be worked out (thus, my agreement with the NTIA's statement on that particular aspect.) As much as I wish your hopes for human beings to be purely/fully rational beings could come through so that we can solve all our collective problems through legal algorithms :-) I'm afraid we as species still have a long way to go and will keep making a fuss about our dear and non-rational collective identity issues. Regarding the NTIA statement more specifically, I agree with you only half-way on the notion that "In effect, the US has told the objecting governments that they do not need to compromise, or negotiate in good faith with the gTLD applicants. Because if there is no agreement they still get what they want: advice from the GAC to kill the applications. Now that they know that the US will not stand in the way of any such GAC vote, why should they be flexible?" I though you said that any government --not just US like by a special veto power-- can raise objections to the GAC opinion (in the making) and therefore prevent a consensus which is necessary to demand ICANN considering (let alone following) the GAC advisory. In that case, it seems to me what USG is saying is: "If I were to be the only one to disagree with that, then I'll let the GAC go with it." But in case Sweden, Australia, Luxembourg (who know?), etc. strongly oppose that opinion, then there won't be consensus anyway, right? You've got to be sympathetic to USG in these tough times... At some point, or once in a while, you need to give something to all those frustrated governments to make them believe that you seriously think they are still relevant in the governance model you're proposing: What better time than in the aftermath of Prism? Mawaki ------- Mawaki Chango, PhD Internet Policy Consultant @chamawak On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Mawaki**** > > Here is my take on the NTIA statement: > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/07/06/the-ntias-new-policy-of-appeasement/ > **** > > ** ** > > From my point of view, I would reject BOTH the trademark community's > insistence that they own generic words in the domain name space because > they are trademarked somewhere, AND your belief that local communities > "own" names (which may appear in dozens of other places or could be used in > ways which do not create confusion or violate any legal rights). Those > views are perfectly symmetrical and are based on the nominal fallacy > described below.**** > > ** ** > > So much discussion of this issue is founded on the assumption that the > exclusive occupation of a domain name string also means exclusive ownership > or occupation of a market or region semantically referenced by a string. > This assumption is obviously false: registration of the string .BOOK does > NOT give anyone any special market control over books, or over the use of > the word 'book' in thousands of other contexts, and the same goes for > "Amazon" or geographic names. Let people use words freely and creatively > and unless specific, well-bounded rights are violated, e.g. via deliberate > deception or misleading uses, **** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Mawaki Chango > *Sent:* Monday, July 08, 2013 6:19 AM > *To:* Internet Governance; Carlos A. Afonso > *Subject:* Re: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names...**** > > ** ** > > It makes sense to me that national sovereignty does not provide for any > exclusive rights over the use of names of places or words of a language, > even if that language is only spoken in one country on earth. However, the > people living in those places (eg, cities) should have a say in one form or > the other, to the extent that the name at hand unambiguously or > presumptively designates one such place or that the TLD string is meant to > do so. In other terms, this should be the business of the local community, > not the central government.**** > > ** ** > > On the other hand, I wish the US government recognizes that what cannot be > granted to national sovereignty in terms of gTLD strings cannot and should > not be granted to intellectual property rights (IPR) holders. There was a > time when registries eemed to claim a sort of PR over the meaning of the > TLD they're managing, or IPR stakeholders generally over that of their > ASCII domain names, and tried to preempt ownership of any future IDN > versions. I don't even understand how we got there, since I thought > registries do not have property rights per se over (or ownership of) the > gTLD. While I exited that debate some time ago, I hope this is a settled > matter that IPR holders over a given string of characters in a given > jurisdiction do not automatically enjoy an exclusive right over the > intended meaning of that string in all jurisdictions, and thus, over all > versions of it in any scripts at the same domain name level. The global > nature of the Internet notwithstanding, the ultimate sources of actual > rights are still off line.**** > > ** ** > > Mawaki**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Jul 8 23:39:00 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:09:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24430FE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: IMHO - This is the best time to not feed their egos. We do what we do in pursuit of excellence, not for approval or success - or the illusion of approval or success. -C On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > make them believe that you seriously think they are still relevant in the > governance model you're proposing: What better time than in the aftermath > of Prism? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jul 9 03:09:19 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:09:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24430FE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51DBB71F.9020806@digsys.bg> On 09.07.13 00:38, Mawaki Chango wrote: > You've got to be sympathetic to USG in these tough times... At some > point, or once in a while, you need to give something to all those > frustrated governments to make them believe that you seriously think > they are still relevant in the governance model you're proposing: What > better time than in the aftermath of Prism? Frustrated? Governments? No need to give anything to any government. They will make sure they take anything and everything they deem fit at one point or another --- even if they do not have any use of it -- just in case -- to not lose "control". 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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 03:14:34 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:44:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: <51DBB71F.9020806@digsys.bg> References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24430FE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51DBB71F.9020806@digsys.bg> Message-ID: +1 Daniel Unless you were being sarcastic on this point Mawaki :) -C On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On 09.07.13 00:38, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> You've got to be sympathetic to USG in these tough times... At some >> point, or once in a while, you need to give something to all those >> frustrated governments to make them believe that you seriously think they >> are still relevant in the governance model you're proposing: What better >> time than in the aftermath of Prism? >> > > Frustrated? Governments? > > No need to give anything to any government. They will make sure they take > anything and everything they deem fit at one point or another --- even if > they do not have any use of it -- just in case -- to not lose "control". > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 9 05:12:26 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:12:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24430FE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <51DBB71F.9020806@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > +1 Daniel > > Unless you were being sarcastic on this point Mawaki :) > +1 mC > -C > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > >> >> On 09.07.13 00:38, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> You've got to be sympathetic to USG in these tough times... At some >>> point, or once in a while, you need to give something to all those >>> frustrated governments to make them believe that you seriously think they >>> are still relevant in the governance model you're proposing: What better >>> time than in the aftermath of Prism? >>> >> >> Frustrated? Governments? >> >> No need to give anything to any government. They will make sure they take >> anything and everything they deem fit at one point or another --- even if >> they do not have any use of it -- just in case -- to not lose "control". >> >> 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 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 9 07:33:23 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:33:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24430FE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <41CD9A7A-8584-4ABD-847F-802B17D17875@acm.org> On 8 Jul 2013, at 23:38, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I do think those grassroots stakeholders need to be heard and careful attention should be paid to their concerns. I do not think at all that they "own" the name of their location, but just that a case can be made --and should be heard-- that they might have a higher stake in that name so far (say, before it becomes a TLD) than most of of us. It's up to ICANN to put in place the relevant criteria against which to evaluate those objections (BTW, I thought there was something like this as part of the new gTLD policy when it began to take shape back in 2006/07?) Hi, This was the whole basis, something that also had mixed appeal among ICANN non-commercials, for communities to be able to file objections against TLD applicants who thought that they were caused material harm by a new TLD. It is not that they could claim ownership, but if somehow, they could demonstrate that the allocation of the name would cause their community (however one wants to define this broad term) harm they could object to an application. And if they could show harm, the application would be denied. Of course we did not know that ICANN and its DRPs were going to charge up to 250 KUSD for the privilege of objecting. But we knew it was going to be more expensive that many communities could afford even if it cost 5 KUSD. That is why an Independent Objector, also of mixed appeal in ICANN Non commercial circles, was established - to make objections for communities who would be hurt. Unfortunately ICANN hired one who did not understand his charter and who decided it wasn't up to him to decide what was a community. In fact, in the end it turned out to be ICANN that injured communities with ridiculous fees for objections and an incompetent IO So you remember correctly, it was part of the policy, it is just that the implementation was so badly done. avri DRP - Dispute Resolution Providers KUSF - 1000 US Dollars IO - Independent Objector. TLD - Top Level Domain Name -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 9 07:58:40 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:58:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Questionnaire References: <084c01ce7c87$9f70c4c0$de524e40$@ch> Message-ID: <72D3ADF9-44D2-462A-B504-3BEB223D86EB@acm.org> Begin forwarded message: > From: Peter Major > Subject: Questionnaire > Date: 9 July 2013 11:35:17 GMT+02:00 > To: WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG > Reply-To: UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > Dear WGEC Members, > > I am pleased to inform you that our questionnaire has been posted on the CSTD websitehttp://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx. It can be filled out online or can be downloaded as PDF. The deadline for submission is 15 August 2013. > In case you have comments, remarks or suggestions please send your mail to the Secretariat. > I look forward to receiving many responses to our questionnaire and to continue our work based on the responses in our second meeting. > > Best regards, > > Peter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jul 9 08:04:15 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:04:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message , at 10:18:42 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Mawaki Chango writes >It makes sense to me that national sovereignty does not provide for any >exclusive rights over the use of names of places or words of a >language, even if that language is only spoken in one country on earth. >However, the people living in those places (eg, cities) should have a >say in one form or the other, to the extent that the name at hand >unambiguously or presumptively designates one such place or that the >TLD string is meant to do so. In other terms, this should be the >business of the local community, not the central government Geographic names are a minefield. Paris, Texas; anyone? But the ICANN process decided (as it has before with countries) to use ISO lists. Although when I asked at an ICANN meeting, staff could not produce a copy of the list so that we could understand what it was we were potentially agreeing to. However, ISO (being to some extent based on places you might want to mail a letter to) does not recognise 'non-sovereign regions' like Scandinavia or Patagonia. It does, however, recognise regions within countries, like Delta (in Nigeria) which creates an instant conflict with a well known airline. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 08:32:21 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:32:21 +0400 Subject: [governance] An interview with Snowden and more in Der Spiegel Message-ID: <000001ce7ca0$69966a80$3cc33f80$@gmail.com> http://www.cryptome.org/2013/07/snowden-spiegel-13-0707-en.htm -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jul 9 07:01:58 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 07:01:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA surveillance In-Reply-To: <20130708162652.13206084@quill> References: <20130708162652.13206084@quill> Message-ID: On Jul 8, 2013, at 10:26 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > As it is likely that like in many (almost all?) other countries, NSA > has conducted surveillance activities in regard to communications in > Switzerland, and those surveillance activities are illegal under local > law, we (an alliance of civil society persons and groups) have filed a > criminal complaint. There is some question as to their validity under US law as well, and this may be heard by the US Supreme Court in the near future - FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From r.deibert at utoronto.ca Tue Jul 9 07:54:22 2013 From: r.deibert at utoronto.ca (Ronald Deibert) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 07:54:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] New Citizen Lab Report Message-ID: Dear Colleagues I am pleased to announce the latest Citizen Lab publication: Some Devices Wander by Mistake: Planet Blue Coat Redux Morgan Marquis-Boire (project leader), Collin Anderson (lead technical research), Jakub Dalek (lead technical research), Sarah McKune (lead legal research), John Scott-Railton (lead legal research), Ron Deibert, Adam Senft, Matthew Carrieri, and Saad Khan. In this report, our third on Blue Coat Systems, we use a combination of network measurement and scanning methods and tools to identify instances of Blue Coat ProxySG and PacketShaper devices. This kind of equipment can be used to secure and maintain networks, but it can also be used to implement politically-motivated restrictions on access to information, and monitor and record private communications. We found Blue Coat devices on public networks of 83 countries (20 countries with both ProxySG and PacketShaper, 56 countries with PacketShaper only, and 7 countries with ProxySG only). Included in these countries are regimes with questionable human rights records, and three countries that are subject to US sanctions: Iran, Syria, and Sudan. Our findings raise questions around the sale of “dual-use” communication technologies to national jurisdictions where the implementation of such technology has not been publicly debated or shaped by the rule of law. The issues raised by this report go beyond one company and its products and services, and underscore the imperatives of addressing the global public policy implications of internationally-marketed communications infrastructure and services. Alongside the publication of our report, we have sent a letter to representatives of Blue Coat and its major investor, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), inquiring about their human rights due diligence processes, and commit to publishing in full their reply. Read the full report [PDF]: https://citizenlab.org/storage/bluecoat/CitLab-PlanetBlueCoatRedux-FINAL.pdf View the map: https://citizenlab.org/storage/bluecoat/fig1.jpg Explore the data: http://goo.gl/EG7Oc Read the Washington Post article; http://goo.gl/0BxtD Email the Citizen Lab: info at citizenlab.org Ronald Deibert Director, the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto (416) 946-8916 PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab r.deibert at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 10:00:30 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 14:00:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hey, Just one crazy idea... Since domain names are not supposed to be trademarks or brand names, why should we/ICANN care about the integrity of a brand name at any given level (primary, secondary, etc.) of the DNS? In other words, we should be able to solve that problem by allowing ourselves to have domain names such as these: geo.amazon co.amazon geo.patagonia co.patagonia Why not? Especially if the Co's are just going to use their brand gTLD only for their corporate needs, and not to provide domain name registration to the public. Thanks, Avri, for the refreshing and update, which is helpful. Since I left the GNSO Council I've unfortunately had too many other things to read than ICANN's outputs, so wasn't so sure how much of those early ideas made it to the final policy. At least this gives me the illusion that I can still rely on my memory. The problem you're pointing to is a real problem with ICANN processes whereby a policy development process can take 5 years and more (how long for the Whois policy?), so much so that by the time it gets to implementation most of the people who participated in the design/development process are no longer around and their say, if and when they care to comment, is not given as much attention as it would have, had they still been in office/representation. Mawaki On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message mail.gmail.com>, > at 10:18:42 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Mawaki Chango writes > > It makes sense to me that national sovereignty does not provide for any >> exclusive rights over the use of names of places or words of a language, >> even if that language is only spoken in one country on earth. However, the >> people living in those places (eg, cities) should have a say in one form or >> the other, to the extent that the name at hand unambiguously or >> presumptively designates one such place or that the TLD string is meant to >> do so. In other terms, this should be the business of the local community, >> not the central government >> > > Geographic names are a minefield. Paris, Texas; anyone? > > But the ICANN process decided (as it has before with countries) to use ISO > lists. Although when I asked at an ICANN meeting, staff could not produce a > copy of the list so that we could understand what it was we were > potentially agreeing to. > > However, ISO (being to some extent based on places you might want to mail > a letter to) does not recognise 'non-sovereign regions' like Scandinavia or > Patagonia. > > It does, however, recognise regions within countries, like Delta (in > Nigeria) which creates an instant conflict with a well known airline. > -- > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 9 10:10:06 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:10:06 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> You can have all kind of combinations. What about .zon? Then you can have ama.zon. What about .nia nd go for patago.nia, alba.nia, tanza.nia. Just playing with words :-)))) w ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango Gesendet: Di 09.07.2013 16:00 An: Internet Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... Hey, Just one crazy idea... Since domain names are not supposed to be trademarks or brand names, why should we/ICANN care about the integrity of a brand name at any given level (primary, secondary, etc.) of the DNS? In other words, we should be able to solve that problem by allowing ourselves to have domain names such as these: geo.amazon co.amazon geo.patagonia co.patagonia Why not? Especially if the Co's are just going to use their brand gTLD only for their corporate needs, and not to provide domain name registration to the public. Thanks, Avri, for the refreshing and update, which is helpful. Since I left the GNSO Council I've unfortunately had too many other things to read than ICANN's outputs, so wasn't so sure how much of those early ideas made it to the final policy. At least this gives me the illusion that I can still rely on my memory. The problem you're pointing to is a real problem with ICANN processes whereby a policy development process can take 5 years and more (how long for the Whois policy?), so much so that by the time it gets to implementation most of the people who participated in the design/development process are no longer around and their say, if and when they care to comment, is not given as much attention as it would have, had they still been in office/representation. Mawaki On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Roland Perry wrote: In message >, at 10:18:42 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Mawaki Chango writes It makes sense to me that national sovereignty does not provide for any exclusive rights over the use of names of places or words of a language, even if that language is only spoken in one country on earth. However, the people living in those places (eg, cities) should have a say in one form or the other, to the extent that the name at hand unambiguously or presumptively designates one such place or that the TLD string is meant to do so. In other terms, this should be the business of the local community, not the central government Geographic names are a minefield. Paris, Texas; anyone? But the ICANN process decided (as it has before with countries) to use ISO lists. Although when I asked at an ICANN meeting, staff could not produce a copy of the list so that we could understand what it was we were potentially agreeing to. However, ISO (being to some extent based on places you might want to mail a letter to) does not recognise 'non-sovereign regions' like Scandinavia or Patagonia. It does, however, recognise regions within countries, like Delta (in Nigeria) which creates an instant conflict with a well known airline. -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 11:23:00 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:23:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: New Citizen Lab Report: Some Devices Wander by Mistake: Planet Blue Coat Redux References: Message-ID: <3C512FF3-C3C6-406D-82CC-63699A812BB4@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: "Robert Guerra" > Date: July 9, 2013, 10:19:10 AM EDT > To: "Carolina Rossini" > Cc: Ronald Deibert > Subject: New Citizen Lab Report: Some Devices Wander by Mistake: Planet Blue Coat Redux > Reply-To: r.deibert at utoronto.ca > > Dear colleague, > > I am pleased to announce the latest Citizen Lab publication: > > Some Devices Wander by Mistake: Planet Blue Coat Redux > Morgan Marquis-Boire (project leader), Collin Anderson (lead technical research), Jakub Dalek (lead technical research), Sarah McKune (lead legal research), John Scott-Railton (lead legal research), Ron Deibert, Adam Senft, Matthew Carrieri, and Saad Khan. > > In this report, our third on Blue Coat Systems, we use a combination of network measurement and scanning methods and tools to identify instances of Blue Coat ProxySG and PacketShaper devices. This kind of equipment can be used to secure and maintain networks, but it can also be used to implement politically-motivated restrictions on access to information, and monitor and record private communications. > > We found Blue Coat devices on public networks of 83 countries (20 countries with both ProxySG and PacketShaper, 56 countries with PacketShaper only, and 7 countries with ProxySG only). Included in these countries are regimes with questionable human rights records, and three countries that are subject to US sanctions: Iran, Syria, and Sudan. > > Our findings raise questions around the sale of “dual-use” communication technologies to national jurisdictions where the implementation of such technology has not been publicly debated or shaped by the rule of law. The issues raised by this report go beyond one company and its products and services, and underscore the imperatives of addressing the global public policy implications of internationally-marketed communications infrastructure and services. > > Alongside the publication of our report, we have sent a letter to representatives of Blue Coat and its major investor, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), inquiring about their human rights due diligence processes, and commit to publishing in full their reply. > > Read the full report [PDF]: https://citizenlab.org/storage/bluecoat/CitLab-PlanetBlueCoatRedux-FINAL.pdf > > View the map: https://citizenlab.org/storage/bluecoat/fig1.jpg > > Explore the data: http://goo.gl/EG7Oc > > Read the Washington Post article; http://goo.gl/0BxtD > > Email the Citizen Lab: info at citizenlab.org > > Ronald Deibert > Director, the Citizen Lab > and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies > Munk School of Global Affairs > University of Toronto > (416) 946-8916 > PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt > http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ > twitter.com/citizenlab > r.deibert at utoronto.ca > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 9 11:32:39 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:32:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:10 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > You can have all kind of combinations. > > What about .zon? Then you can have ama.zon. What about .nia nd go for > patago.nia, alba.nia, tanza.nia. > Exactly!!! So that all the fuss about TLDs, trademarks and geographic names will become history, and ICANN will be much less about creating new rights or protecting vested interests! And then we can focus more on actual infrastructure and usage issues. mC > > Just playing with words :-)))) > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango > Gesendet: Di 09.07.2013 16:00 > An: Internet Governance > Betreff: Re: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... > > > Hey, > > > Just one crazy idea... Since domain names are not supposed to be > trademarks or brand names, why should we/ICANN care about the integrity of > a brand name at any given level (primary, secondary, etc.) of the DNS? In > other words, we should be able to solve that problem by allowing ourselves > to have domain names such as these: > > geo.amazon > co.amazon > geo.patagonia > co.patagonia > > Why not? Especially if the Co's are just going to use their brand gTLD > only for their corporate needs, and not to provide domain name registration > to the public. > > Thanks, Avri, for the refreshing and update, which is helpful. Since I > left the GNSO Council I've unfortunately had too many other things to read > than ICANN's outputs, so wasn't so sure how much of those early ideas made > it to the final policy. At least this gives me the illusion that I can > still rely on my memory. The problem you're pointing to is a real problem > with ICANN processes whereby a policy development process can take 5 years > and more (how long for the Whois policy?), so much so that by the time it > gets to implementation most of the people who participated in the > design/development process are no longer around and their say, if and when > they care to comment, is not given as much attention as it would have, had > they still been in office/representation. > > Mawaki > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > > > In message < > CACTo+v8O__vkuZKDTs8SaNGS+gzhf_+_WmfJhBwHYLRyxn41Cw at mail.gmail.com CACTo%2Bv8O__vkuZKDTs8SaNGS%2Bgzhf_%2B_WmfJhBwHYLRyxn41Cw at mail.gmail.com> > >, at 10:18:42 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Mawaki Chango > writes > > > It makes sense to me that national sovereignty does not > provide for any exclusive rights over the use of names of places or words > of a language, even if that language is only spoken in one country on > earth. However, the people living in those places (eg, cities) should have > a say in one form or the other, to the extent that the name at hand > unambiguously or presumptively designates one such place or that the TLD > string is meant to do so. In other terms, this should be the business of > the local community, not the central government > > > > Geographic names are a minefield. Paris, Texas; anyone? > > But the ICANN process decided (as it has before with countries) to > use ISO lists. Although when I asked at an ICANN meeting, staff could not > produce a copy of the list so that we could understand what it was we were > potentially agreeing to. > > However, ISO (being to some extent based on places you might want > to mail a letter to) does not recognise 'non-sovereign regions' like > Scandinavia or Patagonia. > > It does, however, recognise regions within countries, like Delta > (in Nigeria) which creates an instant conflict with a well known airline. > -- > 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 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue Jul 9 12:03:51 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 21:33:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wouldnt the infinite combinations reduce the value of domains to dust? This would destroy the domain trading marketplaces in minutes. It'll also eliminate squatters which is good, but on the other side... not so good. Just my 2c. -C On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:10 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> You can have all kind of combinations. >> >> What about .zon? Then you can have ama.zon. What about .nia nd go for >> patago.nia, alba.nia, tanza.nia. >> > > Exactly!!! So that all the fuss about TLDs, trademarks and geographic > names will become history, and ICANN will be much less about creating new > rights or protecting vested interests! And then we can focus more on actual > infrastructure and usage issues. > mC > > >> >> Just playing with words :-)))) >> >> w >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango >> Gesendet: Di 09.07.2013 16:00 >> An: Internet Governance >> Betreff: Re: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... >> >> >> Hey, >> >> >> Just one crazy idea... Since domain names are not supposed to be >> trademarks or brand names, why should we/ICANN care about the integrity of >> a brand name at any given level (primary, secondary, etc.) of the DNS? In >> other words, we should be able to solve that problem by allowing ourselves >> to have domain names such as these: >> >> geo.amazon >> co.amazon >> geo.patagonia >> co.patagonia >> >> Why not? Especially if the Co's are just going to use their brand gTLD >> only for their corporate needs, and not to provide domain name registration >> to the public. >> >> Thanks, Avri, for the refreshing and update, which is helpful. Since I >> left the GNSO Council I've unfortunately had too many other things to read >> than ICANN's outputs, so wasn't so sure how much of those early ideas made >> it to the final policy. At least this gives me the illusion that I can >> still rely on my memory. The problem you're pointing to is a real problem >> with ICANN processes whereby a policy development process can take 5 years >> and more (how long for the Whois policy?), so much so that by the time it >> gets to implementation most of the people who participated in the >> design/development process are no longer around and their say, if and when >> they care to comment, is not given as much attention as it would have, had >> they still been in office/representation. >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Roland Perry < >> roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: >> >> >> In message < >> CACTo+v8O__vkuZKDTs8SaNGS+gzhf_+_WmfJhBwHYLRyxn41Cw at mail.gmail.com> CACTo%2Bv8O__vkuZKDTs8SaNGS%2Bgzhf_%2B_WmfJhBwHYLRyxn41Cw at mail.gmail.com> >> >, at 10:18:42 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Mawaki Chango >> writes >> >> >> It makes sense to me that national sovereignty does not >> provide for any exclusive rights over the use of names of places or words >> of a language, even if that language is only spoken in one country on >> earth. However, the people living in those places (eg, cities) should have >> a say in one form or the other, to the extent that the name at hand >> unambiguously or presumptively designates one such place or that the TLD >> string is meant to do so. In other terms, this should be the business of >> the local community, not the central government >> >> >> >> Geographic names are a minefield. Paris, Texas; anyone? >> >> But the ICANN process decided (as it has before with countries) >> to use ISO lists. Although when I asked at an ICANN meeting, staff could >> not produce a copy of the list so that we could understand what it was we >> were potentially agreeing to. >> >> However, ISO (being to some extent based on places you might want >> to mail a letter to) does not recognise 'non-sovereign regions' like >> Scandinavia or Patagonia. >> >> It does, however, recognise regions within countries, like Delta >> (in Nigeria) which creates an instant conflict with a well known airline. >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jul 9 03:40:15 2013 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:40:15 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Call for Nominations - Appeals Team 2013 - 2014 / Deadline COB: Monday July 8th 2013 References: Message-ID: <09C05F64-6A3C-47CB-B138-805E4B98B290@traceynaughton.com> Dear Caucus Colleagues, Three fabulous and well suited people have nominated themselves to participate in the 2013-14 Appeals Team. The IGC Charter allows for five people. It's difficult for me to understand how the rest of you can actually resist this opportunity. It must have been an oversight. Therefore you have 24 more hours - until the end of your Tuesday working day, to get your nomination in. Write it on a serviette this evening and scan it in the morning, stay up all night and make it a polished presentation, but whatever you do, don't miss out on being on the Appeals Team! Tracey __________________ Tracey Naughton (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, Geneva and Tunis) Communication for Development Consultant Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - Extractive Sector ____________________________________ based in Victoria, Australia land line: +613 54706853 mobile: +61 413 019 707 skype: tnaughton9999 Begin forwarded message: > From: Tracey Naughton > Subject: Call for Nominations - Appeals Team 2013 - 2014 / Deadline COB: Monday July 8th 2013 > Date: 3 July 2013 4:19:16 PM AEST > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > Dear Colleagues, > > Call for nominees from the IGC List to serve on the Appeals Team for 2013 - 2014 > > I post this in my capacity as non-voting Chair of the NomCom for the selection process. I hope that many of you will be very enthusiastic about nominating! > > Background > > The role of the Appeals Team is described in the IGC Charter as follows: > > An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals > board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating > committee as defined within the Charter. Coordinators are not > qualified to be members of the appeals team. To see how the > nominating committee is selected, visit: > http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > > Duties of the Appeals Team > > Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the > main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the > coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will > review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from > the IGC membership. > > Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will > decide on the merit of the appeal. Decisions by the appeals team are > based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or ore > votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full > consensus. > > The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision > reviewed. > > Selection Criteria and information requested: > > To nominate yourself or another consenting person, please send the NomCom a statement that answers the following questions and selection criteria. > > Please send this statement and your CV before the end of your business day on Monday 8th July 2013 to > > 1. Your name, email and contact number > > 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are affiliated to. If you have been nominated by such a network or entity please provide information on the selection process. > > 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 > > Please respond to the following criteria in your nomination statement: > > - your interaction with the IGC List > - your experience, if any, in human resources/conflict management > - your technical knowledge related to IGC discussions > The NomCom will also take into account: > - the content of your CV > - regional and gender balance > - as per members of the current Appeals team, the IGC Coordinators and the NomCom members, voting and non-voting, are not eligible to nominate > > Send to: > Please contact me if you have any questions. The NomCom looks forward to your enthusiastic nominations! > > warm regards, > > Tracey > > > > __________________ > Tracey Naughton > (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, Geneva and Tunis) > Communication for Development Consultant > Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - Extractive Sector > ____________________________________ > based in Victoria, Australia > land line: +613 54706853 > mobile: +61 413 019 707 > skype: tnaughton9999 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 9 16:38:49 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:08:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil opens investigation into US spying In-Reply-To: References: <51DB65DD.10902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <017301ce7ce4$538cb0c0$faa61240$@gmail.com> From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:31 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Brazil opens investigation into US spying http://www.kcautv.com/story/22786118/brazil-opens-investigation-into-us-spyi ng Associated Press July 8, 2013 Brazil opens investigation into US spying By BRADLEY BROOKS Associated Press SAO PAULO (AP) - The Brazilian government began an investigation Monday into whether telecommunications firms operating in the country cooperated with the U.S. as part of a spying program that has collected data on billions of telephone and email conversations. Anatel, the government agency that regulates the telecom sector in Brazil, said it's working with federal police and other government agencies on the investigation. The O Globo newspaper reported this weekend that information released by the National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden showed Brazil is the top target in Latin America for the NSA's massive intelligence-gathering effort aimed at monitoring communications around the world. Brazil isn't alone in its concern; London-based advocacy group Privacy International filed lawsuit on Monday over alleged spying of internet and phone users in Britain. Earlier, official in Germany, France, Hong Kong and other nations lodged complaints. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff the nation would raise the issue at the 193-country U.N. International Telecommunications Union and also at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights since the "fundamentals" of human rights include "freedom of expression and the right to privacy." "If there was any involvement of other countries, of other businesses that aren't Brazilian, then it's certainly a violation of our sovereignty, without a doubt, just like it's a violation of human rights," Rousseff said. "Now, we have to look at things without pre-judgment, we have to investigate." Brazilian regulator Anatel said in its statement that "it's worth clarifying that the confidentiality of data and telephone communications is a right guaranteed by the constitution, by our laws and by Anatel's regulations. Its violation is punishable in civil, criminal and administrative realms." The O Globo article said the NSA collected the data through an undefined association between U.S. and Brazilian telecommunications companies. It said it could not verify which Brazilian companies were involved or if they were aware their links were being used to collect the data. On Monday, O Globo reported that the U.S. had a significant data center in Brasilia for the collection of intercepted global satellite communications until at least 2002, based upon the Snowden document it's seen. The documents didn't indicate if that still exists. Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo told reporters in Brasilia that he "has no doubt whatsoever" Brazilian citizens and institutions were spied upon. "Even the European Parliament was monitored - you think that we weren't?" he said. "We have to verify the circumstances in which this occurred, the exact way and when." Bernardo met Monday afternoon with U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon. "He denied that there is such monitoring here in Brazil, he said that there never was a data center and that there is no agreement with Brazilian companies to collect data in Brazilian territory," Bernardo said afterward, according to the state-run Agencia Brasil news agency. The O Globo article printed Sunday said that "Brazil, with extensive digitalized public and private networks operated by large telecommunications and internet companies, appears to stand out on maps of the U.S. agency as a priority target for telephony and data traffic, alongside nations such as China, Russia and Pakistan." The report did not describe the sort of data collected, but the U.S. programs appear to gather what is called metadata: logs of message times, addresses and other information rather than the content of the messages. U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Rio de Janeiro and originally broke the Snowden story in the Britain-based Guardian newspaper, where he writes a regularly blog, co-authored the Sunday report in O Globo. In an interview with the Globo TV network, Greenwald said the Snowden documents show that the U.S. was using Brazil as a "bridge" to gather data on better-protected states where it cannot gain direct access, but whose traffic may pass through Brazil. "We don't have access to China's system, but we have access to Brazil's system," Greenwald said, speaking Portuguese. "So, we collect the traffic in Brazil not because we want to know what one Brazilian is saying to another Brazilian, but because we want to know what someone in China is saying to somebody in Iran, for example." Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota expressed "deep concern" about the monitoring of Brazil and demanded explanations from U.S. diplomats. On Monday, he said the conversations with the Americans were "encouraging" but that "we need to deepen the discussions." Patriota reiterated that Brazil was looking at how to take measures at the United Nations "that would guarantee not just privacy, but also the respect and the citizenship of states when it comes to the use of information technology and cyber security." In Washington, the U.S. State Department declined to comment on the alleged intelligence activity. "As a matter of policy, we have been clear that the United States does gather foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations. I can tell you that we have spoken with Brazilian officials regarding these allegations," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. "We plan to continue our dialogue with the Brazilians through normal diplomatic channels. But those are conversations that, of course, we would keep private." ___ Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this report. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. !DSPAM:2676,51dc4feb201481397013154! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 9 18:08:38 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 03:38:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <01c201ce7cf0$e5af76c0$b10e6440$@gmail.com> And a significant municipality in British Columbia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta,_British_Columbia M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:34 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In message , at 10:18:42 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Mawaki Chango writes >It makes sense to me that national sovereignty does not provide for any >exclusive rights over the use of names of places or words of a >language, even if that language is only spoken in one country on earth. >However, the people living in those places (eg, cities) should have a >say in one form or the other, to the extent that the name at hand >unambiguously or presumptively designates one such place or that the >TLD string is meant to do so. In other terms, this should be the >business of the local community, not the central government Geographic names are a minefield. Paris, Texas; anyone? But the ICANN process decided (as it has before with countries) to use ISO lists. Although when I asked at an ICANN meeting, staff could not produce a copy of the list so that we could understand what it was we were potentially agreeing to. However, ISO (being to some extent based on places you might want to mail a letter to) does not recognise 'non-sovereign regions' like Scandinavia or Patagonia. It does, however, recognise regions within countries, like Delta (in Nigeria) which creates an instant conflict with a well known airline. -- 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 jfcallo at ciencitec.com Wed Jul 10 02:47:02 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:47:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Call for Nominations - Appeals Team 2013 - 2014 / Deadline COB: Monday July 8th 2013 In-Reply-To: <09C05F64-6A3C-47CB-B138-805E4B98B290@traceynaughton.com> References: <09C05F64-6A3C-47CB-B138-805E4B98B290@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: <20130710024702.1121593w1abacg9y@www.ciencitec.com> (English) Gentlemen More than a month ago included my name in a list, as a volunteer, now no trace ... Bad joke?,? Discrimination?, Is happening. thanks One wants to work, but who chooses who? (Spanish) Señores: Hace mas de un mes incluyeron mi nombre en una lista, como voluntario, ahora ni rastro...¿Broma de mal gusto?, ¿Discriminacion?, que esta pasando. Gracias Uno desea colaborar, pero ¿quien elige a quien? José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Tracey Naughton escribió: > Dear Caucus Colleagues, > > Three fabulous and well suited people have nominated themselves to > participate in the 2013-14 Appeals Team. The IGC Charter allows for > five people. It's difficult for me to understand how the rest of you > can actually resist this opportunity. It must have been an > oversight. Therefore you have 24 more hours - until the end of your > Tuesday working day, to get your nomination in. Write it on a > serviette this evening and scan it in the morning, stay up all night > and make it a polished presentation, but whatever you do, don't miss > out on being on the Appeals Team! > > Tracey > __________________ > Tracey Naughton > (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, > Geneva and Tunis) > Communication for Development Consultant > Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - > Extractive Sector > ____________________________________ > based in Victoria, Australia > land line: +613 54706853 > mobile: +61 413 019 707 > skype: tnaughton9999 > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Tracey Naughton >> Subject: Call for Nominations - Appeals Team 2013 - 2014 / Deadline >> COB: Monday July 8th 2013 >> Date: 3 July 2013 4:19:16 PM AEST >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Call for nominees from the IGC List to serve on the Appeals Team >> for 2013 - 2014 >> >> I post this in my capacity as non-voting Chair of the NomCom for >> the selection process. I hope that many of you will be very >> enthusiastic about nominating! >> >> Background >> >> The role of the Appeals Team is described in the IGC Charter as follows: >> >> An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals >> board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating >> committee as defined within the Charter. Coordinators are not >> qualified to be members of the appeals team. To see how the >> nominating committee is selected, visit: >> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process >> >> Duties of the Appeals Team >> >> Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the >> main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the >> coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will >> review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from >> the IGC membership. >> >> Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will >> decide on the merit of the appeal. Decisions by the appeals team are >> based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or ore >> votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full >> consensus. >> >> The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision >> reviewed. >> >> Selection Criteria and information requested: >> >> To nominate yourself or another consenting person, please send the >> NomCom a statement that answers the following questions and >> selection criteria. >> >> Please send this statement and your CV before the end of your >> business day on Monday 8th July 2013 to >> >> >> 1. Your name, email and contact number >> >> 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you >> are affiliated to. If you have been nominated by such a network or >> entity please provide information on the selection process. >> >> 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 >> >> Please respond to the following criteria in your nomination statement: >> >> - your interaction with the IGC List >> - your experience, if any, in human resources/conflict management >> - your technical knowledge related to IGC discussions >> The NomCom will also take into account: >> - the content of your CV >> - regional and gender balance >> - as per members of the >> current Appeals team, the IGC Coordinators and the NomCom members, >> voting and non-voting, are not eligible to nominate >> >> Send to: > >> Please contact me if you have any questions. The NomCom looks >> forward to your enthusiastic nominations! >> >> warm regards, >> >> Tracey >> >> >> >> __________________ >> Tracey Naughton >> (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, >> Geneva and Tunis) >> Communication for Development Consultant >> Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - >> Extractive Sector >> ____________________________________ >> based in Victoria, Australia >> land line: +613 54706853 >> mobile: +61 413 019 707 >> skype: tnaughton9999 >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 10 03:13:58 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:13:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: <01c201ce7cf0$e5af76c0$b10e6440$@gmail.com> References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <01c201ce7cf0$e5af76c0$b10e6440$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <01c201ce7cf0$e5af76c0$b10e6440$@gmail.com>, at 03:38:38 on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, michael gurstein writes >And a significant municipality in British Columbia. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta,_British_Columbia But that one doesn't have an entry in the relevant ISO list (because it's not a province). The only city-sized entities with protection built into the Guidebook are Capital cities (hence my use of Paris as an example). What I'm still unsure of is whether Paris, Texas needs the permission of the French, the USA, or no-one, in the event it wanted to have its own gTLD. R. >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry >Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:34 PM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... > >In message >, at >10:18:42 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Mawaki Chango writes >>It makes sense to me that national sovereignty does not provide for any >>exclusive rights over the use of names of places or words of a >>language, even if that language is only spoken in one country on earth. >>However, the people living in those places (eg, cities) should have a >>say in one form or the other, to the extent that the name at hand >>unambiguously or presumptively designates one such place or that the >>TLD string is meant to do so. In other terms, this should be the >>business of the local community, not the central government > >Geographic names are a minefield. Paris, Texas; anyone? > >But the ICANN process decided (as it has before with countries) to use ISO >lists. Although when I asked at an ICANN meeting, staff could not produce a >copy of the list so that we could understand what it was we were potentially >agreeing to. > >However, ISO (being to some extent based on places you might want to mail a >letter to) does not recognise 'non-sovereign regions' like Scandinavia or >Patagonia. > >It does, however, recognise regions within countries, like Delta (in >Nigeria) which creates an instant conflict with a well known airline. >-- >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 daniel at digsys.bg Wed Jul 10 07:36:35 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:36:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <51DD4743.7070805@digsys.bg> On 09.07.13 19:03, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Wouldnt the infinite combinations reduce the value of domains to dust? > This would destroy the domain trading marketplaces in minutes. It'll > also eliminate squatters which is good, but on the other side... not > so good. Just my 2c. By the way, domain names (and IP addresses for that matter) never had any value as such. These are just strings of characters and numbers, respectively. It is the management of the domain that creates any value. Therefore a well managed 'somename' in .mediocretld might be way more valuable than 'somename' in poorly managed .greattld. The value in domain names is not 'natural' -- it comes from someone's hard work. This by the way is a good answer to someone who claims domain names are 'natural resource' and therefore subject to deliberate regulation. From another perspective, amazon.com is only "good" because of all the infrastructure behind it. If they chose so at the time, the same infrastructure could sit behind say garbage.com and the "name" would be just as attractive. 'amazon' in this case is not even an 'telling' word, they could have used 'onlinetrading', no? :) Daniel > -C > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:10 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > wrote: > > You can have all kind of combinations. > > What about .zon? Then you can have ama.zon. What about .nia nd > go for patago.nia, alba.nia, tanza.nia. > > > Exactly!!! So that all the fuss about TLDs, trademarks and > geographic names will become history, and ICANN will be much less > about creating new rights or protecting vested interests! And then > we can focus more on actual infrastructure and usage issues. > mC > > > Just playing with words :-)))) > > w > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > im Auftrag von > Mawaki Chango > Gesendet: Di 09.07.2013 16:00 > An: Internet Governance > Betreff: Re: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... > > > Hey, > > > Just one crazy idea... Since domain names are not supposed to > be trademarks or brand names, why should we/ICANN care about > the integrity of a brand name at any given level (primary, > secondary, etc.) of the DNS? In other words, we should be able > to solve that problem by allowing ourselves to have domain > names such as these: > > geo.amazon > co.amazon > geo.patagonia > co.patagonia > > Why not? Especially if the Co's are just going to use their > brand gTLD only for their corporate needs, and not to provide > domain name registration to the public. > > Thanks, Avri, for the refreshing and update, which is helpful. > Since I left the GNSO Council I've unfortunately had too many > other things to read than ICANN's outputs, so wasn't so sure > how much of those early ideas made it to the final policy. At > least this gives me the illusion that I can still rely on my > memory. The problem you're pointing to is a real problem with > ICANN processes whereby a policy development process can take > 5 years and more (how long for the Whois policy?), so much so > that by the time it gets to implementation most of the people > who participated in the design/development process are no > longer around and their say, if and when they care to comment, > is not given as much attention as it would have, had they > still been in office/representation. > > Mawaki > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > > In message > > > > >, at 10:18:42 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Mawaki Chango > > writes > > > It makes sense to me that national sovereignty > does not provide for any exclusive rights over the use of > names of places or words of a language, even if that language > is only spoken in one country on earth. However, the people > living in those places (eg, cities) should have a say in one > form or the other, to the extent that the name at hand > unambiguously or presumptively designates one such place or > that the TLD string is meant to do so. In other terms, this > should be the business of the local community, not the central > government > > > > Geographic names are a minefield. Paris, Texas; anyone? > > But the ICANN process decided (as it has before with > countries) to use ISO lists. Although when I asked at an ICANN > meeting, staff could not produce a copy of the list so that we > could understand what it was we were potentially agreeing to. > > However, ISO (being to some extent based on places you > might want to mail a letter to) does not recognise > 'non-sovereign regions' like Scandinavia or Patagonia. > > It does, however, recognise regions within countries, > like Delta (in Nigeria) which creates an instant conflict with > a well known airline. > -- > 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 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 10 08:18:15 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:18:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: <51DD4743.7070805@digsys.bg> References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51DD4743.7070805@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <51DD4743.7070805 at digsys.bg>, at 14:36:35 on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Daniel Kalchev writes >By the way, domain names (and IP addresses for that matter) never had >any value as such. These are just strings of characters and numbers, >respectively. > >It is the management of the domain that creates any value. I disagree. What has value is the brand, and the expression of that brand in a domain name has value just as the expression of a brand on a sign over a shop, or $5 worth of paint on the side of an aircraft. >From another perspective, amazon.com is only "good" because of all the >infrastructure behind it. The "good" derives from the brand behind it. I suspect it's harder work creating a famous brand when the name appears to have no obvious connection with the trading activity[1]. And of course I use the word "trading" in a broad sense. ISOC, ICANN and NTIA are all brands, too. >From Wikipedia: "Bezos wanted a name for his company that began with "A" so that it would appear early in alphabetic order. He began looking through the dictionary and settled on "Amazon" because it was a place that was "exotic and different" and it was one of the biggest rivers in the world, as he hoped his company would be. Which is interesting because people complaining about "Amazon" as a pseudo-geographic name probably have in mind "Amazon Basin" rather than just the river itself. [1] Unlike, for example, my current brand and domain name: InternetPolicyAgency; or "MicroSoft" which is an exceedingly generic contraction of "Microcomputer Software". I've always thought that one should strive for a brand which is simultaneously: The company name, an easy to remember URL (for web and email), the marketing strap line, and a plausible description of what you do. One of my earliest in the Internet space was "UK Online". I was influenced a little by Regis McKenna, whose business card in the "Job title" field was "Himself", and I met back in those heady days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regis_McKenna -- 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 daniel at digsys.bg Wed Jul 10 08:51:08 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:51:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51DD4743.7070805@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <51DD58BC.4040204@digsys.bg> On 10.07.13 15:18, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <51DD4743.7070805 at digsys.bg>, at 14:36:35 on Wed, 10 Jul > 2013, Daniel Kalchev writes >> By the way, domain names (and IP addresses for that matter) never had >> any value as such. These are just strings of characters and numbers, >> respectively. >> >> It is the management of the domain that creates any value. > I disagree. What has value is the brand, and the expression of that > brand in a domain name has value just as the expression of a brand on a > sign over a shop, or $5 worth of paint on the side of an aircraft. We seem to agree here, despite the difference in wording. What makes any brand any valuable is not the 'name', but all that is behind it. > >From another perspective, amazon.com is only "good" because of all the >> infrastructure behind it. > The "good" derives from the brand behind it. Well... the brand is only any good, because of of what is delivered, not because of it's label. But as much the brand is backed by the delivered products and is represented by the brand label, then yes. > I suspect it's harder work creating a famous brand when the name appears > to have no obvious connection with the trading activity[1]. Good example is SONY. However, despite being 'good name', SONY would have no value if that company does not do what they do -- and have done trough the years. Of course a brand of 'SONY' is better than 'Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo', for many reasons. But if for example, they chose to name their company SONAY, then today sonay.com would have some value, but sony.com -- probably not. This is why the domain name as such has no value. > > And of course I use the word "trading" in a broad sense. ISOC, ICANN and > NTIA are all brands, too. > > From Wikipedia: > > "Bezos wanted a name for his company that began with "A" so that > it would appear early in alphabetic order. He began looking > through the dictionary and settled on "Amazon" because it was a > place that was "exotic and different" and it was one of the > biggest rivers in the world, as he hoped his company would be. > > Which is interesting because people complaining about "Amazon" as a > pseudo-geographic name probably have in mind "Amazon Basin" rather than > just the river itself. It is also worth noting, that the interpretation of the name is also related to the background of those who interpret it. For someone dealing with geography and rivers, that Amazon would definitely be the river. For the tourist, that would be the 'exotic' area, as you mentioned. Recently I found myself with an iPhone app named Amazon... only to discover it has nothing in common with the Amazon trading site I expected it to be, but with the touristic kind.. I also believe he wanted to have the connection with 'amazing' too.. But whatever it was, Bezos settled for it and today it is an famous brand, particularly tied to it's domain name. > [1] Unlike, for example, my current brand and domain name: > InternetPolicyAgency; or "MicroSoft" which is an exceedingly generic > contraction of "Microcomputer Software". > > I've always thought that one should strive for a brand which is > simultaneously: > > The company name, an easy to remember URL (for web and email), the > marketing strap line, and a plausible description of what you do. > One of my earliest in the Internet space was "UK Online". > > I was influenced a little by Regis McKenna, whose business card in > the "Job title" field was "Himself", and I met back in those heady > days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regis_McKenna Yes, it is interesting, that when we create new brands, we do consider the Internet domain names. What is even more interesting is that in recent times the whole domain name is considered, not just the label. This then changes the domain name industry focus, because for example not all attractive names end with .com or .net... Many years ago, we had an request for the domain name aquarium.bg from Russia. Since that was an usual (at the time) request, I specifically contacted the applicants to inquire and better understand why they were interested in an .bg name. Their response was: "We are from the Russian rock band Aquarium and we want an .bg name, because we will give the domain as a birthday present to out lead singer Boris Grebenshchikov, whose initials are BG". Because of all this, my opinion is that the introduction of many new "top-level" names will not destroy the domain industry, it will simply provide more choice. People will continue to find creative ways to map their brands to Internet names and create new brands using Internet domains. 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 12:18:00 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:18:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: <51DD58BC.4040204@digsys.bg> References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51DD4743.7070805@digsys.bg> <51DD58BC.4040204@digsys.bg> Message-ID: "The value in domain names is not 'natural' -- it comes from someone's hard work." Nonetheless, if some stakeholders can make that easier by choosing and hoarding specific combinations... they'll certainly do. On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On 10.07.13 15:18, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message <51DD4743.7070805 at digsys.bg>, at 14:36:35 on Wed, 10 Jul >> 2013, Daniel Kalchev writes >> >>> By the way, domain names (and IP addresses for that matter) never had >>> any value as such. These are just strings of characters and numbers, >>> respectively. >>> >>> It is the management of the domain that creates any value. >>> >> I disagree. What has value is the brand, and the expression of that >> brand in a domain name has value just as the expression of a brand on a >> sign over a shop, or $5 worth of paint on the side of an aircraft. >> > > We seem to agree here, despite the difference in wording. What makes any > brand any valuable is not the 'name', but all that is behind it. > > > >From another perspective, amazon.com is only "good" because of all the >> >>> infrastructure behind it. >>> >> The "good" derives from the brand behind it. >> > > Well... the brand is only any good, because of of what is delivered, not > because of it's label. But as much the brand is backed by the delivered > products and is represented by the brand label, then yes. > > > I suspect it's harder work creating a famous brand when the name appears >> to have no obvious connection with the trading activity[1]. >> > > Good example is SONY. > > However, despite being 'good name', SONY would have no value if that > company does not do what they do -- and have done trough the years. > Of course a brand of 'SONY' is better than 'Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo', for many > reasons. > > But if for example, they chose to name their company SONAY, then today > sonay.com would have some value, but sony.com -- probably not. > This is why the domain name as such has no value. > > > >> And of course I use the word "trading" in a broad sense. ISOC, ICANN and >> NTIA are all brands, too. >> >> From Wikipedia: >> >> "Bezos wanted a name for his company that began with "A" so that >> it would appear early in alphabetic order. He began looking >> through the dictionary and settled on "Amazon" because it was a >> place that was "exotic and different" and it was one of the >> biggest rivers in the world, as he hoped his company would be. >> >> Which is interesting because people complaining about "Amazon" as a >> pseudo-geographic name probably have in mind "Amazon Basin" rather than >> just the river itself. >> > > It is also worth noting, that the interpretation of the name is also > related to the background of those who interpret it. For someone dealing > with geography and rivers, that Amazon would definitely be the river. For > the tourist, that would be the 'exotic' area, as you mentioned. Recently I > found myself with an iPhone app named Amazon... only to discover it has > nothing in common with the Amazon trading site I expected it to be, but > with the touristic kind.. > I also believe he wanted to have the connection with 'amazing' too.. > > But whatever it was, Bezos settled for it and today it is an famous brand, > particularly tied to it's domain name. > > > [1] Unlike, for example, my current brand and domain name: >> InternetPolicyAgency; or "MicroSoft" which is an exceedingly generic >> contraction of "Microcomputer Software". >> >> I've always thought that one should strive for a brand which is >> simultaneously: >> >> The company name, an easy to remember URL (for web and email), the >> marketing strap line, and a plausible description of what you do. >> One of my earliest in the Internet space was "UK Online". >> >> I was influenced a little by Regis McKenna, whose business card in >> the "Job title" field was "Himself", and I met back in those heady >> days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Regis_McKenna >> > > Yes, it is interesting, that when we create new brands, we do consider the > Internet domain names. What is even more interesting is that in recent > times the whole domain name is considered, not just the label. This then > changes the domain name industry focus, because for example not all > attractive names end with .com or .net... > > Many years ago, we had an request for the domain name aquarium.bg from > Russia. Since that was an usual (at the time) request, I specifically > contacted the applicants to inquire and better understand why they were > interested in an .bg name. Their response was: "We are from the Russian > rock band Aquarium and we want an .bg name, because we will give the domain > as a birthday present to out lead singer Boris Grebenshchikov, whose > initials are BG". > > Because of all this, my opinion is that the introduction of many new > "top-level" names will not destroy the domain industry, it will simply > provide more choice. People will continue to find creative ways to map > their brands to Internet names and create new brands using Internet domains. > > 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 > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 12:30:06 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 22:00:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: <51DD58BC.4040204@digsys.bg> References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51DD4743.7070805@digsys.bg> <51DD58BC.4040204@digsys.bg> Message-ID: I disagree with you on some of this Daniel. While you're right in that a domain per se has no value - that's like saying land per se has no value, or proper nouns (eg. New York) per se have no value or like silicon per se has no value. Naturally creating the value depends on someone, somewhere - but the fact is that these things exist and hence can be valued - given a specific 'value' and traded for that value or the value increased/diminished. The context of amazon.com - the value of that domain name is a static zero. It's someone else's brand and would thus be inappropriate to 'take' that (if it were available) perhaps even illegal. Domain trading is more related to the perceived value of a domain, and not necessarily actual marketable brand value. Perception that a .COM domain is better for international business than a .IN domain, or that a .WS website may prove to be a more effective online platform than other things - purely perception - and people are willing to invest in it to get that perceived boost. If .COM and .IN ceases to exist as such, and you can have anything and everything - there will be a loss of that perception, and thus a loss of interest in registering specific more expensive TLDs - which in turn would result in perceived losses to the root authorities of these domains. At the same time I do agree that this will result in *tremendous* choice - and would allow people to have extremely customized domain names - which does have some value in itself and to the people buying it. -C On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On 10.07.13 15:18, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message <51DD4743.7070805 at digsys.bg>, at 14:36:35 on Wed, 10 Jul >> 2013, Daniel Kalchev writes >> >>> By the way, domain names (and IP addresses for that matter) never had >>> any value as such. These are just strings of characters and numbers, >>> respectively. >>> >>> It is the management of the domain that creates any value. >>> >> I disagree. What has value is the brand, and the expression of that >> brand in a domain name has value just as the expression of a brand on a >> sign over a shop, or $5 worth of paint on the side of an aircraft. >> > > We seem to agree here, despite the difference in wording. What makes any > brand any valuable is not the 'name', but all that is behind it. > > > >From another perspective, amazon.com is only "good" because of all the >> >>> infrastructure behind it. >>> >> The "good" derives from the brand behind it. >> > > Well... the brand is only any good, because of of what is delivered, not > because of it's label. But as much the brand is backed by the delivered > products and is represented by the brand label, then yes. > > > I suspect it's harder work creating a famous brand when the name appears >> to have no obvious connection with the trading activity[1]. >> > > Good example is SONY. > > However, despite being 'good name', SONY would have no value if that > company does not do what they do -- and have done trough the years. > Of course a brand of 'SONY' is better than 'Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo', for many > reasons. > > But if for example, they chose to name their company SONAY, then today > sonay.com would have some value, but sony.com -- probably not. > This is why the domain name as such has no value. > > > >> And of course I use the word "trading" in a broad sense. ISOC, ICANN and >> NTIA are all brands, too. >> >> From Wikipedia: >> >> "Bezos wanted a name for his company that began with "A" so that >> it would appear early in alphabetic order. He began looking >> through the dictionary and settled on "Amazon" because it was a >> place that was "exotic and different" and it was one of the >> biggest rivers in the world, as he hoped his company would be. >> >> Which is interesting because people complaining about "Amazon" as a >> pseudo-geographic name probably have in mind "Amazon Basin" rather than >> just the river itself. >> > > It is also worth noting, that the interpretation of the name is also > related to the background of those who interpret it. For someone dealing > with geography and rivers, that Amazon would definitely be the river. For > the tourist, that would be the 'exotic' area, as you mentioned. Recently I > found myself with an iPhone app named Amazon... only to discover it has > nothing in common with the Amazon trading site I expected it to be, but > with the touristic kind.. > I also believe he wanted to have the connection with 'amazing' too.. > > But whatever it was, Bezos settled for it and today it is an famous brand, > particularly tied to it's domain name. > > > [1] Unlike, for example, my current brand and domain name: >> InternetPolicyAgency; or "MicroSoft" which is an exceedingly generic >> contraction of "Microcomputer Software". >> >> I've always thought that one should strive for a brand which is >> simultaneously: >> >> The company name, an easy to remember URL (for web and email), the >> marketing strap line, and a plausible description of what you do. >> One of my earliest in the Internet space was "UK Online". >> >> I was influenced a little by Regis McKenna, whose business card in >> the "Job title" field was "Himself", and I met back in those heady >> days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Regis_McKenna >> > > Yes, it is interesting, that when we create new brands, we do consider the > Internet domain names. What is even more interesting is that in recent > times the whole domain name is considered, not just the label. This then > changes the domain name industry focus, because for example not all > attractive names end with .com or .net... > > Many years ago, we had an request for the domain name aquarium.bg from > Russia. Since that was an usual (at the time) request, I specifically > contacted the applicants to inquire and better understand why they were > interested in an .bg name. Their response was: "We are from the Russian > rock band Aquarium and we want an .bg name, because we will give the domain > as a birthday present to out lead singer Boris Grebenshchikov, whose > initials are BG". > > Because of all this, my opinion is that the introduction of many new > "top-level" names will not destroy the domain industry, it will simply > provide more choice. People will continue to find creative ways to map > their brands to Internet names and create new brands using Internet domains. > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 10 13:11:25 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 20:11:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51DD4743.7070805@digsys.bg> <51DD58BC.4040204@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <51DD95BD.7080502@digsys.bg> On 10.07.13 19:30, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > I disagree with you on some of this Daniel. While you're right in that > a domain per se has no value - that's like saying land per se has no > value, or proper nouns (eg. New York) per se have no value or like > silicon per se has no value. We can not ignore the fact, that unlike the examples you gave, domain names are not ... real. Nor are they unique. Imagine, we have two names, amazon.com in "this" Internet and amazon.com in someone else's Internet (alternative DNS root). Now, just like with the theory that we can have an unlimited number of parallel realities, we can also have unlimited number of virtual realities (Internet DNS roots). We know, in this particular Internet, whose root is managed by the IANA and .COM by VeriSign, amazon.com does have some value. For Amazon at least. But let's consider two other parallel Internet universes, that of John Public and that of Jane Masters. It may turn out, that in John's Internet, amazon.com too has great value (it might sell health care services and be pretty popular worldwide). This is because whoever ran .com there and whoever ran amazon.com made sure it is well recognized. Provided value. In Jane's Internet however, amazon.com might not have any value, for whatever unfortunate reason. The same amazon.com domain name. Comparing this with the items of your example, imagine we are 1000 years back and people have no idea what to do with silicon. For them, it does not have any value. Or if New York happened to be in an country where there is an continuing civil war and everything is in ruins. > Naturally creating the value depends on someone, somewhere - but the > fact is that these things exist and hence can be valued - given a > specific 'value' and traded for that value or the value > increased/diminished. When it comes to domain names, they are just strings. These can exist in unlimited amounts and in any arrangement. If we restrict yourselves to "our" Internet then creating new TLDs will not impact the amazon.com's value. It has value because of that someone, somewhere. > The context of amazon.com - the value of that > domain name is a static zero. It's someone else's brand and would thus > be inappropriate to 'take' that (if it were available) perhaps even > illegal. I could imagine it has high value for anything associated with "Amazon", for example an hypothetical "Amazon are preservation society" or even the some contemporary representatives of the Amazons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons). > Domain trading is more related to the perceived value of a domain, and > not necessarily actual marketable brand value. Perception that a .COM > domain is better for international business than a .IN domain, or that > a .WS website may prove to be a more effective online platform than > other things - purely perception - and people are willing to invest in > it to get that perceived boost. The perception that a .COM domain is better than .XYZ domain comes only from the perception that the service offered by the .COM domain registration system (registry, registrars, resellers etc), available pricing etc. In this regard .COM is "better", simply because nothing about .XYZ is certain. But if the .XYZ registration system proves to be superior, it might instead take the crown (which will take years to be beneficial, of course). > If .COM and .IN ceases to exist as such, and you can have anything and > everything - there will be a loss of that perception, and thus a loss > of interest in registering specific more expensive TLDs - which in > turn would result in perceived losses to the root authorities of these > domains. Not living in the US and not believing ever, that .COM is "my" domain, I tend to disagree. In fact, I have few .COM domains that match the .BG domains I use and those are simply.. not used. Perhaps I am biased, but "my" domain (TLD) is which I chose -- very similar to "my" country is which I chose --- with the caveat that it is much easier to chose a TLD, than to chose a country to live in... If these TLDs however cease to exist, that will be huge disaster for anyone who chose them for their "home". Nothing to do with their value. If they become unstable however, then their value will decrease. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 13:21:33 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:21:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil opens investigation into US spying In-Reply-To: <017301ce7ce4$538cb0c0$faa61240$@gmail.com> References: <51DB65DD.10902@gmail.com> <017301ce7ce4$538cb0c0$faa61240$@gmail.com> Message-ID: One of the possible side effect of Prism. At this point, this approximation among BRICS around security issues seems inevitable, but on what basis? The distance seemed too broad to give substance to a group of like-minded countries some years ago. What about now? http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1276995/brics-emerging-economies-expand-co-operation-internet-security Marília On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > *From:* sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] *On Behalf > Of *Sid Shniad > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:31 PM > *To:* undisclosed-recipients: > *Subject:* Brazil opens investigation into US spying**** > > ** ** > > * > http://www.kcautv.com/story/22786118/brazil-opens-investigation-into-us-spying > > Associated Press July 8, 2013 ***** > Brazil opens investigation into US spying **** > > *By BRADLEY BROOKS > Associated Press ***** > > SAO PAULO (AP) - The Brazilian government began an investigation Monday > into whether telecommunications firms operating in the country cooperated > with the U.S. as part of a spying program that has collected data on > billions of telephone and email conversations.**** > > Anatel, the government agency that regulates the telecom sector in Brazil, > said it's working with federal police and other government agencies on the > investigation.**** > > The O Globo newspaper reported this weekend that information released by > the National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden showed Brazil is the top > target in Latin America for the NSA's massive intelligence-gathering effort > aimed at monitoring communications around the world.**** > > Brazil isn't alone in its concern; London-based advocacy group Privacy > International filed lawsuit on Monday over alleged spying of internet and > phone users in Britain. Earlier, official in Germany, France, Hong Kong and > other nations lodged complaints.**** > > Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff the nation would raise the issue at the > 193-country U.N. International Telecommunications Union and also at the > U.N. Commission on Human Rights since the "fundamentals" of human rights > include "freedom of expression and the right to privacy."**** > > "If there was any involvement of other countries, of other businesses that > aren't Brazilian, then it's certainly a violation of our sovereignty, > without a doubt, just like it's a violation of human rights," Rousseff > said. "Now, we have to look at things without pre-judgment, we have to > investigate."**** > > Brazilian regulator Anatel said in its statement that "it's worth > clarifying that the confidentiality of data and telephone communications is > a right guaranteed by the constitution, by our laws and by Anatel's > regulations. Its violation is punishable in civil, criminal and > administrative realms."**** > > The O Globo article said the NSA collected the data through an undefined > association between U.S. and Brazilian telecommunications companies. It > said it could not verify which Brazilian companies were involved or if they > were aware their links were being used to collect the data.**** > > On Monday, O Globo reported that the U.S. had a significant data center in > Brasilia for the collection of intercepted global satellite communications > until at least 2002, based upon the Snowden document it's seen. The > documents didn't indicate if that still exists.**** > > Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo told reporters in Brasilia that he > "has no doubt whatsoever" Brazilian citizens and institutions were spied > upon.**** > > "Even the European Parliament was monitored - you think that we weren't?" > he said. "We have to verify the circumstances in which this occurred, the > exact way and when."**** > > Bernardo met Monday afternoon with U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon.**** > > "He denied that there is such monitoring here in Brazil, he said that > there never was a data center and that there is no agreement with Brazilian > companies to collect data in Brazilian territory," Bernardo said afterward, > according to the state-run Agencia Brasil news agency.**** > > The O Globo article printed Sunday said that "Brazil, with extensive > digitalized public and private networks operated by large > telecommunications and internet companies, appears to stand out on maps of > the U.S. agency as a priority target for telephony and data traffic, > alongside nations such as China, Russia and Pakistan."**** > > The report did not describe the sort of data collected, but the U.S. > programs appear to gather what is called metadata: logs of message times, > addresses and other information rather than the content of the messages.** > ** > > U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Rio de Janeiro and > originally broke the Snowden story in the Britain-based Guardian newspaper, > where he writes a regularly blog, co-authored the Sunday report in O Globo. > **** > > In an interview with the Globo TV network, Greenwald said the Snowden > documents show that the U.S. was using Brazil as a "bridge" to gather data > on better-protected states where it cannot gain direct access, but whose > traffic may pass through Brazil.**** > > "We don't have access to China's system, but we have access to Brazil's > system," Greenwald said, speaking Portuguese. "So, we collect the traffic > in Brazil not because we want to know what one Brazilian is saying to > another Brazilian, but because we want to know what someone in China is > saying to somebody in Iran, for example."**** > > Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota expressed "deep concern" about > the monitoring of Brazil and demanded explanations from U.S. diplomats. On > Monday, he said the conversations with the Americans were "encouraging" but > that "we need to deepen the discussions."**** > > Patriota reiterated that Brazil was looking at how to take measures at the > United Nations "that would guarantee not just privacy, but also the respect > and the citizenship of states when it comes to the use of information > technology and cyber security."**** > > In Washington, the U.S. State Department declined to comment on the > alleged intelligence activity.**** > > "As a matter of policy, we have been clear that the United States does > gather foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations. I can tell > you that we have spoken with Brazilian officials regarding these > allegations," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. "We plan to > continue our dialogue with the Brazilians through normal diplomatic > channels. But those are conversations that, of course, we would keep > private."**** > > ___**** > > Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this > report.**** > > ** ** > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Sid-l" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > !DSPAM:2676,51dc4feb201481397013154! **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 14:06:09 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 23:36:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: <51DD95BD.7080502@digsys.bg> References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51DD4743.7070805@digsys.bg> <51DD58BC.4040204@digsys.bg> <51DD95BD.7080502@digsys.bg> Message-ID: "Virtual realities" - Let's not even go there - we've watched enough star trek to understand how that could work..... As for other parallel roots, again not relevant here since we're specifically talking about something to do with ICANN, and not debating alternate possibilities. Regional domain providers do make pretty decent investment in what they're selling - domains - which of course you're aware of - so in making infinite domain possibilities available does this not devalue the product? I may then have Me.India - registered independent of the ccTLD operator - and while I will still have a domain relevant to my region, the ccTLD operator loses out and they sell it less and less - do you really feel the ccTLD can retain its value in this scenario? Given you're associated with .BG you would know the possible impact of this better than me - if registrations for .BG drop and people prefer to take something like .Bulgaria or suchlike - you feel there's no effect, no loss and nothing to worry about, I do defer to your expertise. Best, -C On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > virtual realities -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 14:09:31 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 23:39:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil opens investigation into US spying In-Reply-To: <017301ce7ce4$538cb0c0$faa61240$@gmail.com> References: <51DB65DD.10902@gmail.com> <017301ce7ce4$538cb0c0$faa61240$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Kudos Brazil in being brave enough to take this big step. We'll be following with interest as the outcome has potentially huge impacts. -C On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > *From:* sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] *On Behalf > Of *Sid Shniad > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:31 PM > *To:* undisclosed-recipients: > *Subject:* Brazil opens investigation into US spying**** > > ** ** > > * > http://www.kcautv.com/story/22786118/brazil-opens-investigation-into-us-spying > > Associated Press July 8, 2013 ***** > Brazil opens investigation into US spying **** > > *By BRADLEY BROOKS > Associated Press ***** > > SAO PAULO (AP) - The Brazilian government began an investigation Monday > into whether telecommunications firms operating in the country cooperated > with the U.S. as part of a spying program that has collected data on > billions of telephone and email conversations.**** > > Anatel, the government agency that regulates the telecom sector in Brazil, > said it's working with federal police and other government agencies on the > investigation.**** > > The O Globo newspaper reported this weekend that information released by > the National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden showed Brazil is the top > target in Latin America for the NSA's massive intelligence-gathering effort > aimed at monitoring communications around the world.**** > > Brazil isn't alone in its concern; London-based advocacy group Privacy > International filed lawsuit on Monday over alleged spying of internet and > phone users in Britain. Earlier, official in Germany, France, Hong Kong and > other nations lodged complaints.**** > > Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff the nation would raise the issue at the > 193-country U.N. International Telecommunications Union and also at the > U.N. Commission on Human Rights since the "fundamentals" of human rights > include "freedom of expression and the right to privacy."**** > > "If there was any involvement of other countries, of other businesses that > aren't Brazilian, then it's certainly a violation of our sovereignty, > without a doubt, just like it's a violation of human rights," Rousseff > said. "Now, we have to look at things without pre-judgment, we have to > investigate."**** > > Brazilian regulator Anatel said in its statement that "it's worth > clarifying that the confidentiality of data and telephone communications is > a right guaranteed by the constitution, by our laws and by Anatel's > regulations. Its violation is punishable in civil, criminal and > administrative realms."**** > > The O Globo article said the NSA collected the data through an undefined > association between U.S. and Brazilian telecommunications companies. It > said it could not verify which Brazilian companies were involved or if they > were aware their links were being used to collect the data.**** > > On Monday, O Globo reported that the U.S. had a significant data center in > Brasilia for the collection of intercepted global satellite communications > until at least 2002, based upon the Snowden document it's seen. The > documents didn't indicate if that still exists.**** > > Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo told reporters in Brasilia that he > "has no doubt whatsoever" Brazilian citizens and institutions were spied > upon.**** > > "Even the European Parliament was monitored - you think that we weren't?" > he said. "We have to verify the circumstances in which this occurred, the > exact way and when."**** > > Bernardo met Monday afternoon with U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon.**** > > "He denied that there is such monitoring here in Brazil, he said that > there never was a data center and that there is no agreement with Brazilian > companies to collect data in Brazilian territory," Bernardo said afterward, > according to the state-run Agencia Brasil news agency.**** > > The O Globo article printed Sunday said that "Brazil, with extensive > digitalized public and private networks operated by large > telecommunications and internet companies, appears to stand out on maps of > the U.S. agency as a priority target for telephony and data traffic, > alongside nations such as China, Russia and Pakistan."**** > > The report did not describe the sort of data collected, but the U.S. > programs appear to gather what is called metadata: logs of message times, > addresses and other information rather than the content of the messages.** > ** > > U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Rio de Janeiro and > originally broke the Snowden story in the Britain-based Guardian newspaper, > where he writes a regularly blog, co-authored the Sunday report in O Globo. > **** > > In an interview with the Globo TV network, Greenwald said the Snowden > documents show that the U.S. was using Brazil as a "bridge" to gather data > on better-protected states where it cannot gain direct access, but whose > traffic may pass through Brazil.**** > > "We don't have access to China's system, but we have access to Brazil's > system," Greenwald said, speaking Portuguese. "So, we collect the traffic > in Brazil not because we want to know what one Brazilian is saying to > another Brazilian, but because we want to know what someone in China is > saying to somebody in Iran, for example."**** > > Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota expressed "deep concern" about > the monitoring of Brazil and demanded explanations from U.S. diplomats. On > Monday, he said the conversations with the Americans were "encouraging" but > that "we need to deepen the discussions."**** > > Patriota reiterated that Brazil was looking at how to take measures at the > United Nations "that would guarantee not just privacy, but also the respect > and the citizenship of states when it comes to the use of information > technology and cyber security."**** > > In Washington, the U.S. State Department declined to comment on the > alleged intelligence activity.**** > > "As a matter of policy, we have been clear that the United States does > gather foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations. I can tell > you that we have spoken with Brazilian officials regarding these > allegations," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. "We plan to > continue our dialogue with the Brazilians through normal diplomatic > channels. But those are conversations that, of course, we would keep > private."**** > > ___**** > > Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this > report.**** > > ** ** > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Sid-l" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > !DSPAM:2676,51dc4feb201481397013154! **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 10 14:22:28 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:22:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: <51DD58BC.4040204@digsys.bg> References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51DD4743.7070805@digsys.bg> <51DD58BC.4040204@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <51DD58BC.4040204 at digsys.bg>, at 15:51:08 on Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Daniel Kalchev writes >>What has value is the brand, and the expression of that >> brand in a domain name has value just as the expression of a brand on a >> sign over a shop, or $5 worth of paint on the side of an aircraft. > >We seem to agree here, despite the difference in wording. What makes >any brand any valuable is not the 'name', but all that is behind it. But many brands have a value (despite what the brand-holder delivers) which come from the name itself. Such as "American Airlines" or "British Airways". Even if they don't perform, many people will assume they do, just because of the name. -- 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 16:54:07 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:54:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] INVITE 7/16: Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance References: <1114107833155.1101890603586.172873.7.18163501@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: <4A30BD7C-2541-4594-B98B-F4915366F8AC@gmail.com> Live webcast will be available. Join us! Sorry for cross posting. Carol Carolina Rossini Rossini at newamerica.net Project Director - Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation Begin forwarded message: > From: New America Foundation > Date: July 10, 2013, 4:39:17 PM EDT > To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com > Subject: INVITE 7/16: Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance > Reply-To: communications at newamerica.net > > > Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance > > Tuesday, July 16, 2013 > 2:00 -3:30 p.m. > > New America Foundation > 1899 L St. NW Suite 400 > Washington DC, 20036 > > > > > The Open Technology Institute and Global Partners Present: Frank La Rue, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > > As Brazil formally asks the U.S. to explain how American surveillance programs harm Brazilians, and the European Parliament insists that this "serious violation" of its peoples' rights warrants an inquiry into state surveillance, the U.S. must confront its global human rights commitments to people beyond the purview of the U.S. Constitution. > > The United States has increasingly played a leadership role in international internet human rights battles. A cross-regional statement that the U.S. signed on June 10 emphasized online security measures must be "consistent with states' obligations under international human rights law and full respect for human rights must be maintained." The tension between this stance and the recent surveillance revelations has created a moment, as a global society, to discuss and implement appropriate checks and balances for the protection of privacy and freedom of expression online. U.N. Special Rapporteur Frank la Rue offers an authoritative view on privacy and freedom of expression, setting global standards for international behavior. > > Join us on July 16 for a conversation with Frank La Rue, who has developed landmark reports and guided the U.N. in taking a strong stand for human rights online. > > Agenda > > Welcome Remarks > Sascha Meinrath > Director, Open Technology Institute and Vice President, New America Foundation > > Featured Speaker > Frank La Rue > Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, United Nations > > Moderator > Gene Kimmelman > Director, Internet Freedom and Human Rights Program, New America Foundation > Senior Associate, GP Digital > > GP Digital is part of Global Partners & Associates, which works with governments, agencies and other organizations to improve the use of human rights frameworks in shaping public policy. > > The Open Technology Institute is part of New America Foundation and formulates policy and regulatory reforms to support open architectures and open source innovations and facilitates the development and implementation of open technologies and communications networks. > > To RSVP for the event, click on the red button or go to the event page: > http://newamerica.net/events/2013/human_rights_surveillance > > For questions, contact Stephanie Gunter at New America at (202) 596-3367 or gunter at newamerica.net. > www.NewAmerica.net > > > This email was sent to carolina.rossini at gmail.com by communications at newamerica.net | > Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. > New America Foundation | 1899 L Street, NW | Suite 400 | Washington | DC | 20036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Jul 10 19:00:06 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:00:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil opens investigation into US spying In-Reply-To: References: <51DB65DD.10902@gmail.com> <017301ce7ce4$538cb0c0$faa61240$@gmail.com> Message-ID: To be really honest, Brazil was very coward by challenging the US only on the grounds of "sovereignty" and of possibly turning to the ITU to handle the matter. Ronaldo Lemos (FGV) wrote an important piece on Folha de São Paulo today (in Portuguese) in which he criticizes the lack of consideration for other stakeholders and INet governance-related fora. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2013/07/1308731-analise-reacao-brasileira-a-espionagem-e-antiquada.shtml Regards Diego On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Kudos Brazil in being brave enough to take this big step. We'll be > following with interest as the outcome has potentially huge impacts. > > -C > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> *From:* sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Sid Shniad >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:31 PM >> *To:* undisclosed-recipients: >> *Subject:* Brazil opens investigation into US spying**** >> >> ** ** >> >> * >> http://www.kcautv.com/story/22786118/brazil-opens-investigation-into-us-spying >> >> Associated Press July 8, 2013 ***** >> Brazil opens investigation into US spying **** >> >> *By BRADLEY BROOKS >> Associated Press ***** >> >> SAO PAULO (AP) - The Brazilian government began an investigation Monday >> into whether telecommunications firms operating in the country cooperated >> with the U.S. as part of a spying program that has collected data on >> billions of telephone and email conversations.**** >> >> Anatel, the government agency that regulates the telecom sector in >> Brazil, said it's working with federal police and other government agencies >> on the investigation.**** >> >> The O Globo newspaper reported this weekend that information released by >> the National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden showed Brazil is the top >> target in Latin America for the NSA's massive intelligence-gathering effort >> aimed at monitoring communications around the world.**** >> >> Brazil isn't alone in its concern; London-based advocacy group Privacy >> International filed lawsuit on Monday over alleged spying of internet and >> phone users in Britain. Earlier, official in Germany, France, Hong Kong and >> other nations lodged complaints.**** >> >> Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff the nation would raise the issue at >> the 193-country U.N. International Telecommunications Union and also at the >> U.N. Commission on Human Rights since the "fundamentals" of human rights >> include "freedom of expression and the right to privacy."**** >> >> "If there was any involvement of other countries, of other businesses >> that aren't Brazilian, then it's certainly a violation of our sovereignty, >> without a doubt, just like it's a violation of human rights," Rousseff >> said. "Now, we have to look at things without pre-judgment, we have to >> investigate."**** >> >> Brazilian regulator Anatel said in its statement that "it's worth >> clarifying that the confidentiality of data and telephone communications is >> a right guaranteed by the constitution, by our laws and by Anatel's >> regulations. Its violation is punishable in civil, criminal and >> administrative realms."**** >> >> The O Globo article said the NSA collected the data through an undefined >> association between U.S. and Brazilian telecommunications companies. It >> said it could not verify which Brazilian companies were involved or if they >> were aware their links were being used to collect the data.**** >> >> On Monday, O Globo reported that the U.S. had a significant data center >> in Brasilia for the collection of intercepted global satellite >> communications until at least 2002, based upon the Snowden document it's >> seen. The documents didn't indicate if that still exists.**** >> >> Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo told reporters in Brasilia that he >> "has no doubt whatsoever" Brazilian citizens and institutions were spied >> upon.**** >> >> "Even the European Parliament was monitored - you think that we weren't?" >> he said. "We have to verify the circumstances in which this occurred, the >> exact way and when."**** >> >> Bernardo met Monday afternoon with U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon.**** >> >> "He denied that there is such monitoring here in Brazil, he said that >> there never was a data center and that there is no agreement with Brazilian >> companies to collect data in Brazilian territory," Bernardo said afterward, >> according to the state-run Agencia Brasil news agency.**** >> >> The O Globo article printed Sunday said that "Brazil, with extensive >> digitalized public and private networks operated by large >> telecommunications and internet companies, appears to stand out on maps of >> the U.S. agency as a priority target for telephony and data traffic, >> alongside nations such as China, Russia and Pakistan."**** >> >> The report did not describe the sort of data collected, but the U.S. >> programs appear to gather what is called metadata: logs of message times, >> addresses and other information rather than the content of the messages.* >> *** >> >> U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Rio de Janeiro and >> originally broke the Snowden story in the Britain-based Guardian newspaper, >> where he writes a regularly blog, co-authored the Sunday report in O Globo. >> **** >> >> In an interview with the Globo TV network, Greenwald said the Snowden >> documents show that the U.S. was using Brazil as a "bridge" to gather data >> on better-protected states where it cannot gain direct access, but whose >> traffic may pass through Brazil.**** >> >> "We don't have access to China's system, but we have access to Brazil's >> system," Greenwald said, speaking Portuguese. "So, we collect the traffic >> in Brazil not because we want to know what one Brazilian is saying to >> another Brazilian, but because we want to know what someone in China is >> saying to somebody in Iran, for example."**** >> >> Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota expressed "deep concern" about >> the monitoring of Brazil and demanded explanations from U.S. diplomats. On >> Monday, he said the conversations with the Americans were "encouraging" but >> that "we need to deepen the discussions."**** >> >> Patriota reiterated that Brazil was looking at how to take measures at >> the United Nations "that would guarantee not just privacy, but also the >> respect and the citizenship of states when it comes to the use of >> information technology and cyber security."**** >> >> In Washington, the U.S. State Department declined to comment on the >> alleged intelligence activity.**** >> >> "As a matter of policy, we have been clear that the United States does >> gather foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations. I can tell >> you that we have spoken with Brazilian officials regarding these >> allegations," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. "We plan to >> continue our dialogue with the Brazilians through normal diplomatic >> channels. But those are conversations that, of course, we would keep >> private."**** >> >> ___**** >> >> Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this >> report.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Sid-l" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> !DSPAM:2676,51dc4feb201481397013154! **** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jul 11 01:42:35 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:42:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] NTIA on certain geographic names... In-Reply-To: References: <51D72CFD.3030106@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331CC7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <51DD4743.7070805@digsys.bg> <51DD58BC.4040204@digsys.bg> <51DD95BD.7080502@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <51DE45CB.7050409@digsys.bg> On 10.07.13 21:06, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Regional domain providers do make pretty decent investment in what > they're selling - domains - which of course you're aware of - so in > making infinite domain possibilities available does this not devalue > the product? I may then have Me.India - registered independent of the > ccTLD operator - and while I will still have a domain relevant to my > region, the ccTLD operator loses out and they sell it less and less - > do you really feel the ccTLD can retain its value in this scenario? Yes. If any TLD retains its value, that would be first the ccTLDs, then the specialized "value" gTLDs. > Given you're associated with .BG you would know the possible impact of > this better than me - if registrations for .BG drop and people prefer > to take something like .Bulgaria or suchlike - you feel there's no > effect, no loss and nothing to worry about, I do defer to your expertise. We have seen different waves. There has always been the wave to register domains in "alternative" TLDs, for various reasons -- at some time it was price, at another there was the perceived less complexity, yet in others they went for the anonymity (but then discovered that if nobody knows who you are, you don't really "own" anything). Most often it was "My cousin's young son knows computers, let him chose". At one time the .eu domain came and that more or less coincided with the EU membership of Bulgaria so we saw a "big" rush to get .eu names. The litmus test for me is this: the .BG domain is very small, by any measure (number of domains). Yet, when you walk the streets, or watch advertisements on TV etc, you almost always see an .bg domain name advertised. I can't see many people prefer an .bulgaria or say, .sofia domain instead of .bg -- unless perhaps if they are offered one "for free". In which case, yes, they will get it... and keep their .bg name. Not in near future and not if we continue to keep our domain stable ground. 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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 05:48:53 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:18:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil opens investigation into US spying In-Reply-To: References: <51DB65DD.10902@gmail.com> <017301ce7ce4$538cb0c0$faa61240$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Compared to India, I'd say it was a brave move anyday On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > To be really honest, Brazil was very coward by challenging the US only on > the grounds of "sovereignty" and of possibly turning to the ITU to handle > the matter. Ronaldo Lemos (FGV) wrote an important piece on Folha de São > Paulo today (in Portuguese) in which he criticizes the lack of > consideration for other stakeholders and INet governance-related fora. > > > http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2013/07/1308731-analise-reacao-brasileira-a-espionagem-e-antiquada.shtml > > Regards > Diego > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < > chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Kudos Brazil in being brave enough to take this big step. We'll be >> following with interest as the outcome has potentially huge impacts. >> >> -C >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>> *From:* sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] *On >>> Behalf Of *Sid Shniad >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:31 PM >>> *To:* undisclosed-recipients: >>> *Subject:* Brazil opens investigation into US spying**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> * >>> http://www.kcautv.com/story/22786118/brazil-opens-investigation-into-us-spying >>> >>> Associated Press July 8, 2013 ***** >>> Brazil opens investigation into US spying **** >>> >>> *By BRADLEY BROOKS >>> Associated Press ***** >>> >>> SAO PAULO (AP) - The Brazilian government began an investigation Monday >>> into whether telecommunications firms operating in the country cooperated >>> with the U.S. as part of a spying program that has collected data on >>> billions of telephone and email conversations.**** >>> >>> Anatel, the government agency that regulates the telecom sector in >>> Brazil, said it's working with federal police and other government agencies >>> on the investigation.**** >>> >>> The O Globo newspaper reported this weekend that information released by >>> the National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden showed Brazil is the top >>> target in Latin America for the NSA's massive intelligence-gathering effort >>> aimed at monitoring communications around the world.**** >>> >>> Brazil isn't alone in its concern; London-based advocacy group Privacy >>> International filed lawsuit on Monday over alleged spying of internet and >>> phone users in Britain. Earlier, official in Germany, France, Hong Kong and >>> other nations lodged complaints.**** >>> >>> Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff the nation would raise the issue at >>> the 193-country U.N. International Telecommunications Union and also at the >>> U.N. Commission on Human Rights since the "fundamentals" of human rights >>> include "freedom of expression and the right to privacy."**** >>> >>> "If there was any involvement of other countries, of other businesses >>> that aren't Brazilian, then it's certainly a violation of our sovereignty, >>> without a doubt, just like it's a violation of human rights," Rousseff >>> said. "Now, we have to look at things without pre-judgment, we have to >>> investigate."**** >>> >>> Brazilian regulator Anatel said in its statement that "it's worth >>> clarifying that the confidentiality of data and telephone communications is >>> a right guaranteed by the constitution, by our laws and by Anatel's >>> regulations. Its violation is punishable in civil, criminal and >>> administrative realms."**** >>> >>> The O Globo article said the NSA collected the data through an undefined >>> association between U.S. and Brazilian telecommunications companies. It >>> said it could not verify which Brazilian companies were involved or if they >>> were aware their links were being used to collect the data.**** >>> >>> On Monday, O Globo reported that the U.S. had a significant data center >>> in Brasilia for the collection of intercepted global satellite >>> communications until at least 2002, based upon the Snowden document it's >>> seen. The documents didn't indicate if that still exists.**** >>> >>> Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo told reporters in Brasilia that >>> he "has no doubt whatsoever" Brazilian citizens and institutions were spied >>> upon.**** >>> >>> "Even the European Parliament was monitored - you think that we >>> weren't?" he said. "We have to verify the circumstances in which this >>> occurred, the exact way and when."**** >>> >>> Bernardo met Monday afternoon with U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon.**** >>> >>> "He denied that there is such monitoring here in Brazil, he said that >>> there never was a data center and that there is no agreement with Brazilian >>> companies to collect data in Brazilian territory," Bernardo said afterward, >>> according to the state-run Agencia Brasil news agency.**** >>> >>> The O Globo article printed Sunday said that "Brazil, with extensive >>> digitalized public and private networks operated by large >>> telecommunications and internet companies, appears to stand out on maps of >>> the U.S. agency as a priority target for telephony and data traffic, >>> alongside nations such as China, Russia and Pakistan."**** >>> >>> The report did not describe the sort of data collected, but the U.S. >>> programs appear to gather what is called metadata: logs of message times, >>> addresses and other information rather than the content of the messages. >>> **** >>> >>> U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Rio de Janeiro and >>> originally broke the Snowden story in the Britain-based Guardian newspaper, >>> where he writes a regularly blog, co-authored the Sunday report in O Globo. >>> **** >>> >>> In an interview with the Globo TV network, Greenwald said the Snowden >>> documents show that the U.S. was using Brazil as a "bridge" to gather data >>> on better-protected states where it cannot gain direct access, but whose >>> traffic may pass through Brazil.**** >>> >>> "We don't have access to China's system, but we have access to Brazil's >>> system," Greenwald said, speaking Portuguese. "So, we collect the traffic >>> in Brazil not because we want to know what one Brazilian is saying to >>> another Brazilian, but because we want to know what someone in China is >>> saying to somebody in Iran, for example."**** >>> >>> Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota expressed "deep concern" >>> about the monitoring of Brazil and demanded explanations from U.S. >>> diplomats. On Monday, he said the conversations with the Americans were >>> "encouraging" but that "we need to deepen the discussions."**** >>> >>> Patriota reiterated that Brazil was looking at how to take measures at >>> the United Nations "that would guarantee not just privacy, but also the >>> respect and the citizenship of states when it comes to the use of >>> information technology and cyber security."**** >>> >>> In Washington, the U.S. State Department declined to comment on the >>> alleged intelligence activity.**** >>> >>> "As a matter of policy, we have been clear that the United States does >>> gather foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations. I can tell >>> you that we have spoken with Brazilian officials regarding these >>> allegations," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. "We plan to >>> continue our dialogue with the Brazilians through normal diplomatic >>> channels. But those are conversations that, of course, we would keep >>> private."**** >>> >>> ___**** >>> >>> Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this >>> report.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Sid-l" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> !DSPAM:2676,51dc4feb201481397013154! **** >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Jul 11 06:02:58 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 07:02:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil opens investigation into US spying In-Reply-To: References: <51DB65DD.10902@gmail.com> <017301ce7ce4$538cb0c0$faa61240$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51DE82D2.6010503@cafonso.ca> The relevant criticism of Lemos in the mentioned article is that the national telecom regulator seems to take advantage of this situation to push for more control of the network by the gov agency, proposing measures such as automatic authorization for peeking into communications by a simple police request without due process of law. Similarly, big media pushes for taking down content without due legal process as well, and wants this inserted into the Marco Civil. In other words, sectors of our government are trying to take advantage of the NSA revelations to push for more governmental (and intergovernmental, or multilateral) control of the Internet, in a dubious alliance with transnational telcos and big media. --c.a. On 07/11/2013 06:48 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Compared to India, I'd say it was a brave move anyday > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> To be really honest, Brazil was very coward by challenging the US only on >> the grounds of "sovereignty" and of possibly turning to the ITU to handle >> the matter. Ronaldo Lemos (FGV) wrote an important piece on Folha de São >> Paulo today (in Portuguese) in which he criticizes the lack of >> consideration for other stakeholders and INet governance-related fora. >> >> >> http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mundo/2013/07/1308731-analise-reacao-brasileira-a-espionagem-e-antiquada.shtml >> >> Regards >> Diego >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < >> chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Kudos Brazil in being brave enough to take this big step. We'll be >>> following with interest as the outcome has potentially huge impacts. >>> >>> -C >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>>> *From:* sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] *On >>>> Behalf Of *Sid Shniad >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:31 PM >>>> *To:* undisclosed-recipients: >>>> *Subject:* Brazil opens investigation into US spying**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> * >>>> http://www.kcautv.com/story/22786118/brazil-opens-investigation-into-us-spying >>>> >>>> Associated Press July 8, 2013 ***** >>>> Brazil opens investigation into US spying **** >>>> >>>> *By BRADLEY BROOKS >>>> Associated Press ***** >>>> >>>> SAO PAULO (AP) - The Brazilian government began an investigation Monday >>>> into whether telecommunications firms operating in the country cooperated >>>> with the U.S. as part of a spying program that has collected data on >>>> billions of telephone and email conversations.**** >>>> >>>> Anatel, the government agency that regulates the telecom sector in >>>> Brazil, said it's working with federal police and other government agencies >>>> on the investigation.**** >>>> >>>> The O Globo newspaper reported this weekend that information released by >>>> the National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden showed Brazil is the top >>>> target in Latin America for the NSA's massive intelligence-gathering effort >>>> aimed at monitoring communications around the world.**** >>>> >>>> Brazil isn't alone in its concern; London-based advocacy group Privacy >>>> International filed lawsuit on Monday over alleged spying of internet and >>>> phone users in Britain. Earlier, official in Germany, France, Hong Kong and >>>> other nations lodged complaints.**** >>>> >>>> Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff the nation would raise the issue at >>>> the 193-country U.N. International Telecommunications Union and also at the >>>> U.N. Commission on Human Rights since the "fundamentals" of human rights >>>> include "freedom of expression and the right to privacy."**** >>>> >>>> "If there was any involvement of other countries, of other businesses >>>> that aren't Brazilian, then it's certainly a violation of our sovereignty, >>>> without a doubt, just like it's a violation of human rights," Rousseff >>>> said. "Now, we have to look at things without pre-judgment, we have to >>>> investigate."**** >>>> >>>> Brazilian regulator Anatel said in its statement that "it's worth >>>> clarifying that the confidentiality of data and telephone communications is >>>> a right guaranteed by the constitution, by our laws and by Anatel's >>>> regulations. Its violation is punishable in civil, criminal and >>>> administrative realms."**** >>>> >>>> The O Globo article said the NSA collected the data through an undefined >>>> association between U.S. and Brazilian telecommunications companies. It >>>> said it could not verify which Brazilian companies were involved or if they >>>> were aware their links were being used to collect the data.**** >>>> >>>> On Monday, O Globo reported that the U.S. had a significant data center >>>> in Brasilia for the collection of intercepted global satellite >>>> communications until at least 2002, based upon the Snowden document it's >>>> seen. The documents didn't indicate if that still exists.**** >>>> >>>> Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo told reporters in Brasilia that >>>> he "has no doubt whatsoever" Brazilian citizens and institutions were spied >>>> upon.**** >>>> >>>> "Even the European Parliament was monitored - you think that we >>>> weren't?" he said. "We have to verify the circumstances in which this >>>> occurred, the exact way and when."**** >>>> >>>> Bernardo met Monday afternoon with U.S. Ambassador Thomas Shannon.**** >>>> >>>> "He denied that there is such monitoring here in Brazil, he said that >>>> there never was a data center and that there is no agreement with Brazilian >>>> companies to collect data in Brazilian territory," Bernardo said afterward, >>>> according to the state-run Agencia Brasil news agency.**** >>>> >>>> The O Globo article printed Sunday said that "Brazil, with extensive >>>> digitalized public and private networks operated by large >>>> telecommunications and internet companies, appears to stand out on maps of >>>> the U.S. agency as a priority target for telephony and data traffic, >>>> alongside nations such as China, Russia and Pakistan."**** >>>> >>>> The report did not describe the sort of data collected, but the U.S. >>>> programs appear to gather what is called metadata: logs of message times, >>>> addresses and other information rather than the content of the messages. >>>> **** >>>> >>>> U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Rio de Janeiro and >>>> originally broke the Snowden story in the Britain-based Guardian newspaper, >>>> where he writes a regularly blog, co-authored the Sunday report in O Globo. >>>> **** >>>> >>>> In an interview with the Globo TV network, Greenwald said the Snowden >>>> documents show that the U.S. was using Brazil as a "bridge" to gather data >>>> on better-protected states where it cannot gain direct access, but whose >>>> traffic may pass through Brazil.**** >>>> >>>> "We don't have access to China's system, but we have access to Brazil's >>>> system," Greenwald said, speaking Portuguese. "So, we collect the traffic >>>> in Brazil not because we want to know what one Brazilian is saying to >>>> another Brazilian, but because we want to know what someone in China is >>>> saying to somebody in Iran, for example."**** >>>> >>>> Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota expressed "deep concern" >>>> about the monitoring of Brazil and demanded explanations from U.S. >>>> diplomats. On Monday, he said the conversations with the Americans were >>>> "encouraging" but that "we need to deepen the discussions."**** >>>> >>>> Patriota reiterated that Brazil was looking at how to take measures at >>>> the United Nations "that would guarantee not just privacy, but also the >>>> respect and the citizenship of states when it comes to the use of >>>> information technology and cyber security."**** >>>> >>>> In Washington, the U.S. State Department declined to comment on the >>>> alleged intelligence activity.**** >>>> >>>> "As a matter of policy, we have been clear that the United States does >>>> gather foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations. I can tell >>>> you that we have spoken with Brazilian officials regarding these >>>> allegations," said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. "We plan to >>>> continue our dialogue with the Brazilians through normal diplomatic >>>> channels. But those are conversations that, of course, we would keep >>>> private."**** >>>> >>>> ___**** >>>> >>>> Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this >>>> report.**** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Sid-l" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> !DSPAM:2676,51dc4feb201481397013154! **** >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 06:11:39 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:41:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil opens investigation into US spying In-Reply-To: <51DE82D2.6010503@cafonso.ca> References: <51DB65DD.10902@gmail.com> <017301ce7ce4$538cb0c0$faa61240$@gmail.com> <51DE82D2.6010503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Won't happen doesnt matter how hard they try. -C On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > more governmental (and intergovernmental, or multilateral) control of the > Internet -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jul 11 06:29:52 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:29:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: Brazil opens investigation into US spying In-Reply-To: References: <51DB65DD.10902@gmail.com> <017301ce7ce4$538cb0c0$faa61240$@gmail.com> <51DE82D2.6010503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51DE8920.4010904@digsys.bg> The "problem" with these fruitless efforts is that they take away valuable resources from resolving more relevant Internet governance issues. In a way, they will not win the direct confrontation, but will gain advantage of the "enemy" not being able to move forward faster -- and eventually giving up. I was under the impression that this was an technique of the KGB (and previous agencies) inspired tactics, but I now see it is apparently spread worldwide :) In any case, regulating the Internet has nothing to do with preventing someone to spy on you. More regulation, more spying. This is how it works. Daniel On 11.07.13 13:11, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Won't happen doesnt matter how hard they try. > -C > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > > more governmental (and intergovernmental, or multilateral) control > of the Internet > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jul 11 09:52:21 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:52:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] U.S. public opinion shifting in favor of civil liberties v national security In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: * http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/public-opinion-shifts-on-security-liberty-balance/ * Public Opinion Shifts on Security-Liberty BalanceBy NATE SILVER A new Quinnipiac poll has found a significant shift in public opinion on the trade-off between civil liberties and national security. In the new survey, released on Wednesday, 45 percent of the public said they thought the government’s antiterrorism policies have “gone too far in restricting the average person’s civil liberties” — as compared with 40 percent who said they have “not gone far enough to adequately protect the country.” -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jul 12 10:46:22 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:46:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] African Domain Name System Forum Message-ID: Dear All, I got into Durban this morning and this afternoon joined the African community and global stakeholders in their African Domain Name System Forum. This is the 7th AFTLDbAfrican ccTLD event. The event is well attended by Registrars, Resellers, ISOC chapters and ccNSO operators. WIPO Domain Name Dispute Resolution and ccTLD Resolution. WIPO currently has the floor at the moment. Very exciting session at the ICC. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jul 12 10:51:36 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:51:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: African Domain Name System Forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you are interested in following the meeting, visit: http://durban47.icann.org/node/39561 Sent from my iPad On Jul 12, 2013, at 4:46 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > I got into Durban this morning and this afternoon joined the African community and global stakeholders in their African Domain Name System Forum. This is the 7th AFTLDbAfrican ccTLD event. The event is well attended by Registrars, Resellers, ISOC chapters and ccNSO operators. > > WIPO Domain Name Dispute Resolution and ccTLD Resolution. WIPO currently has the floor at the moment. Very exciting session at the ICC. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jul 12 15:33:37 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:33:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] INVITE 7/16: Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance In-Reply-To: <4A30BD7C-2541-4594-B98B-F4915366F8AC@gmail.com> References: <1114107833155.1101890603586.172873.7.18163501@scheduler.constantcontact.com> <4A30BD7C-2541-4594-B98B-F4915366F8AC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130712213337.08ba0c15@quill> Carolina wrote: > Live webcast will be available. Join us! That is great! Thank you so much for organizing this. I hope your server infrastructure will be able to handle strong interest in the webscast. Greetings, Norbert > Sorry for cross posting. > Carol > > Carolina Rossini > Rossini at newamerica.net > Project Director - Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: New America Foundation > > Date: July 10, 2013, 4:39:17 PM EDT > > To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com > > Subject: INVITE 7/16: Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of > > Surveillance Reply-To: communications at newamerica.net > > > > > > Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance > > > > Tuesday, July 16, 2013 > > 2:00 -3:30 p.m. > > > > New America Foundation > > 1899 L St. NW Suite 400 > > Washington DC, 20036 > > > > > > > > > > The Open Technology Institute and Global Partners Present: Frank La > > Rue, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > > As Brazil formally asks the U.S. to explain how American > > surveillance programs harm Brazilians, and the European Parliament > > insists that this "serious violation" of its peoples' rights > > warrants an inquiry into state surveillance, the U.S. must confront > > its global human rights commitments to people beyond the purview of > > the U.S. Constitution. The United States has increasingly played a > > leadership role in international internet human rights battles. A > > cross-regional statement that the U.S. signed on June 10 emphasized > > online security measures must be "consistent with states' > > obligations under international human rights law and full respect > > for human rights must be maintained." The tension between this > > stance and the recent surveillance revelations has created a > > moment, as a global society, to discuss and implement appropriate > > checks and balances for the protection of privacy and freedom of > > expression online. U.N. Special Rapporteur Frank la Rue offers an > > authoritative view on privacy and freedom of expression, setting > > global standards for international behavior. Join us on July 16 for > > a conversation with Frank La Rue, who has developed landmark > > reports and guided the U.N. in taking a strong stand for human > > rights online. Agenda Welcome Remarks Sascha Meinrath Director, > > Open Technology Institute and Vice President, New America > > Foundation Featured Speaker Frank La Rue Special Rapporteur on the > > Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and > > Expression, United Nations Moderator Gene Kimmelman Director, > > Internet Freedom and Human Rights Program, New America Foundation > > Senior Associate, GP Digital GP Digital is part of Global Partners > > & Associates, which works with governments, agencies and other > > organizations to improve the use of human rights frameworks in > > shaping public policy. The Open Technology Institute is part of New > > America Foundation and formulates policy and regulatory reforms to > > support open architectures and open source innovations and > > facilitates the development and implementation of open technologies > > and communications networks. To RSVP for the event, click on the > > red button or go to the event page: > > http://newamerica.net/events/2013/human_rights_surveillance > > > > For questions, contact Stephanie Gunter at New America at (202) > > 596-3367 or gunter at newamerica.net. www.NewAmerica.net > > > > > > This email was sent to carolina.rossini at gmail.com by > > communications at newamerica.net | Update Profile/Email Address | > > Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. New America > > Foundation | 1899 L Street, NW | Suite 400 | Washington | DC | 20036 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 13 00:54:04 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 06:54:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updates from Durban Message-ID: <1228BB79-D1F8-4A57-835B-A6FBC9F735EC@gmail.com> Dear All, General Update Day 2 of the Africa DNS Forum starts at 9:00am which is in 2 hours of my sending this email. Remote streaming is available at the link I shared yesterday. It was great to see Chaitanya participate remotely and have his questions answered. So far, the generosity of the South African hospitality is really awesome. Today, there will be a session on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and diverse speakers. People are still arriving into Durban for the ICANN 47 and preparatory meetings have started for some. Will post the link for streaming or to see meeting schedules. Last night, we went to this African Dinner and watched a promotional video by Africa.com that is up on You Tube, see: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qKUVfcXB14w&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DqKUVfcXB14w The ATRT2 also had their dinner last night at Mojo Restaurant at the U Shaka Marine World. I am not sure whether they (Africa.com)are bidding for .africa The movie shows an interesting perspective of Africa that contradicts what is usually broadcasted. My favorite bit was Kenya being Africa's Silicon Valley. It is a powerful piece about the desire of a people to determine the course of their own destiny. It was also great to meet Andrew R from Solomon Telekom at Durban domestic Airport and David Conrad and others in Durban. We were on the same flight but did not know that was him. Congratulations to all the Fellows and this particular ICANN meeting promises to be doubly interesting. I would encourage people to stream into sessions that interest them and participate. Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Jul 13 01:05:37 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 10:35:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [PICISOC] Updates from Durban In-Reply-To: <1228BB79-D1F8-4A57-835B-A6FBC9F735EC@gmail.com> References: <1228BB79-D1F8-4A57-835B-A6FBC9F735EC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi All, I also found Adobe connect to be very effective - it handles lag, disconnects and low bandwidth issues with ease - makes it overall a much better experience. I know they've listed the "Virtual Meeting Room" under "High Bandwidth" - but in use it consumes roughly 17-20kbps - and ping does not affect/matter too much. I encourage everyone to join on today, even if its only for a bit. The link is at http://durban47.icann.org/node/39561 - see you there! -Chaitanya On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > General Update > Day 2 of the Africa DNS Forum starts at 9:00am which is in 2 hours of my > sending this email. Remote streaming is available at the link I shared > yesterday. It was great to see Chaitanya participate remotely and have his > questions answered. So far, the generosity of the South African hospitality > is really awesome. > > Today, there will be a session on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and > diverse speakers. People are still arriving into Durban for the ICANN 47 > and preparatory meetings have started for some. Will post the link for > streaming or to see meeting schedules. > > Last night, we went to this African Dinner and watched a promotional video > by Africa.com that is up on You Tube, see: > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qKUVfcXB14w&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DqKUVfcXB14w > > The ATRT2 also had their dinner last night at Mojo Restaurant at the U > Shaka Marine World. > > I am not sure whether they (Africa.com)are bidding for .africa > The movie shows an interesting perspective of Africa that contradicts what > is usually broadcasted. My favorite bit was Kenya being Africa's Silicon > Valley. It is a powerful piece about the desire of a people to determine > the course of their own destiny. > > It was also great to meet Andrew R from Solomon Telekom at Durban domestic > Airport and David Conrad and others in Durban. We were on the same flight > but did not know that was him. Congratulations to all the Fellows and this > particular ICANN meeting promises to be doubly interesting. > > I would encourage people to stream into sessions that interest them and > participate. > > Sent from my iPad > > _______________________________________________ > PICISOC members discussion mailing list > PICISOC at picisoc.org > Unsubscription and other options: > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/picisoc > PICISOC Web site: > http://www.picisoc.org/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Jul 13 19:39:41 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 01:39:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] RFC 6852 appeal Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Sun Jul 14 09:13:10 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:13:10 +1200 Subject: [governance] Navi Pillay on Mass Surveillance and Snowden Message-ID: <51E2A3E6.5090206@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/Media.aspx?IsMediaPage=true&LangID=E -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR4qPmAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqD/EH/j6kBbL0q/dSRYSEyeWhhhjd 6fAKdugapjPDSwKxlEokySSCflmHEQxt+qIjudk4GwZLSSXXvYY/J30sHvees2o8 uo6rNA5anx3ULyB//wbN4KpwLTxXvaXZ3/wVcqfj0wAg+8CH7lg0x01xAM153/T7 vNiUDImLRIYp2BsU9P7Is2pV2esAhP8gRphwRV1uR16gZEMDEy8m+Z7h625kmnP6 GunqD6FTgOrMCvD+tW7YnVSguFn47GzmMY3AOQ4c+BEaYRE/GZ6K3BRq4lHT4MyP 88P7icq+M9bzFrqJBfzAFfNBYhJgcX88pS2Pst3esKImqSDcyc+gpb5F5h8rVN8= =lHRh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jul 14 12:42:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 18:42:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] RFC 6852 appeal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130714184244.037d69fb@quill> Jefsey wrote: > My Civil Society based proposition is for an "NDO" (norms > documentation organization) open debate on the way to address the > main question: “what is the digital world that we want and how do we > manage to control what we will get?”. +1 My thinking goes in a similar direction, the main differences being that I have been using different words and that I'm emphasizing the role of national parliaments. http://WisdomTaskForce.org Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jul 14 22:07:59 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:37:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Amid NSA spying leaks, Brazil considers internet reform legislation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00e401ce8100$27a57120$76f05360$@gmail.com> From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:31 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Amid NSA spying leaks, Brazil considers internet reform legislation http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/2013713172929909896.html Aljazeera 14 July 2013 Brazil eyes internet bill amid spying leaks With reports of NSA internet spying, Congress reconsiders stalled bill that some say would have prevented it. Paula Daibert Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - Reports alleging he US National Security Agency (NSA) has been partnering with companies to spy on Brazilians has heated up debate over a draft bill stuck in Congress since 2011 that might have helped prevent the alleged online snooping. In London's Guardian and Brazilian newspaper O Globo, American journalist Glenn Greenwald recently disclosed the NSA has built a global espionage system in partnership with private companies, with Brazil being its main target in Latin America. The reports were based documents provided by former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. "The NSA has, for years, systematically tapped into the Brazilian telecommunication network and indiscriminately intercepted, collected and stored the email and telephone records of millions of Brazilians,” Greenwald wrote. The reports cite the NSA's "FAIRVIEW" programme, which partners with an identified US telecom company, which in turn works with local telcoms in foreign countries. Through such business relations, the US telecom gains access to the communications of locals around the world, and then passes those onto the NSA. "That the US government - in complete secrecy - is constructing a ubiquitous spying apparatus aimed not only at its own citizens, but all of the world's citizens, has profound consequences," said Greenwald. "It erodes, if not eliminates, the ability to use the internet with any remnant of privacy or personal security." Brazil's leaders were not impressed after the stories broke. Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota expressed “deep concern” and vowed to bring up the allegations with the United States and United Nations. "The Brazilian government is gravely concerned by the news that electronic and telephone communications of Brazilian citizens are the objective of espionage efforts by US intelligence agencies," a foreign ministry statement said. Problem solved? The Brazilian Internet Bill of Civil Rights (Marco Civil da Internet in Portuguese) was drafted with the intent to establish principles, guarantees, rights and duties for internet use in Brazil, determining guidelines on municipal, state and federal levels. Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo has said the bill would have prevented organisations such as the NSA from accessing the data of internet users in Brazil. Some critics have argued, however, the bill would be overly restrictive to police in criminal investigations. Others have said it would be ineffective in protecting the personal data of internet users. Internet providers are partially free to decide which data they are willing to store, how they treat such data, and with whom they might share it. Joana Varon, Centre for Technology and Society of Getúlio Vargas Foundation The Internet Bill of Civil Rights was introduced to the Chamber of Deputies in 2011, after months of open online discussion of its articles, having received thousands of contributions from different sectors. Henrique Eduardo Alves, the Chamber of Deputies president, has announced the bill could be voted on this week. Joana Varon, a researcher at the Centre for Technology and Society of Getúlio Vargas Foundation, said Brazil currently has a legal framework gap concerning online data protection. “Internet providers are partially free to decide which data they are willing to store, how they treat such data, and with whom they might share it," Varon said. "General guidelines are mentioned in their terms of services, but some important details are not. This situation creates uncertainty for users and potential violation of their rights.” The draft bill before Congress would address such gaps, according to Varon. Internet service providers must store connection logs - including the connection duration and IP addresses - for one year if it becomes law. At the same time, providers are forbidden from storing emails, video, or voice communications, and the protection of people's private lives must be ensured, according to the bill. Matter of concern Diego Canabarro, a visiting fellow at the National Center for Digital Government of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, expressed concern that telecom companies may not abide by the bill's privacy protections. “Some of these companies provide the most used online services in the world, and under the argument of national security, the US may request access to different sorts of information,” he said. Other critics said the law could also hamper law enforcement activities attempting to fight online crime. “If one kind of company may store data and the other may not, we have a market reserve," said congressman and businessman Ricardo Izar. "If telecoms could also store applications logs, it would make it easier for the police to track them down on the web during investigations." Alex Castro, a representative from SindiTeleBrasil telecoms union, also said the bill goes too far in its restrictions. “Investigation of crimes online will be more difficult or not viable at all, because nobody will store application logs anymore. We don’t understand the asymmetry this bill introduces,” Castro said. However, Canabarro argued it is important to establish the online rights of Brazilians before being able to set effective rules for fighting online crime. “In this unregulated scenario, the more data companies can store, the easier it is to develop a lucrative business model. Violations, monitoring, spying and commercial exploitation of data are more likely in a context in which there is no minimal law regulating companies,” he said. Paulo Rená, a law researcher at Brasília University, said he does not consider the bill before Congress to favour one side or the other in the debate. “I can choose not to use Google or Facebook, for example, but I need internet connection in any case. If connection providers could also store the services I use, they would be able to track anything down. An applications company cannot access connection logs, but a connection company is able to know the applications I use," he said. "This bill is important not to allow internet providers to monitor communications more.” Further complicating the issue is the conflict of interest behind the bill, said congressman and lawyer Alessandro Molon. “If this is regulated, it would represent profit falls for telecoms. We have congressman who are afraid this bill will hurt this economic sector. You either side with users’ privacy or with connection providers' interests to profit from users' logs,” said Molon. Rená said this issue also goes beyond Brazil's national borders. “Brazil must take very serious steps in the multilateral level, because it is more likely that regulation initiatives will be denied by the US and allies. We also have countries that regulate the internet in a more authoritarian way, like China and North Korea for example, and we don’t seek that,” Rená said. He said if the Internet Bill of Civil Rights passes, Brazil could promote it as an example for other countries to follow. “Brazilian internet law would be a world leader, in content and the way it was democratically formulated.” -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. !DSPAM:2676,51e3038a201481508193542! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 15 02:18:44 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:48:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_Chevron_Granted_Access_to_Activ?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ists=B4_Private_Internet_Data?= In-Reply-To: References: <51E1CA8D.6050608@vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: <001f01ce8123$41e1f950$c5a5ebf0$@gmail.com> From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 4:58 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Chevron Granted Access to Activists´ Private Internet Data https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/11-3 Common Dreams July 11, 2013 In 'Chilling' Ruling, Chevron Granted Access to Activists' Private Internet Data "Sweeping" subpoena violates rights of those who spoke out against oil giant's devastating actions in Ecuador - Lauren McCauley, staff writer Following their guilty sentence for the dumping of 18.5bn gallons of toxic waste in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Chevron is amassing the personal information of the environmentalists and attorneys who fought against them in an effort to prove 'conspiracy.' (Photo: Rainforest Action Network/ cc/ Flickr)The US government is not the only entity who, with judicial approval, is amassing massive amounts of personal information against their so-called enemies. A federal judge has ruled to allow Chevron, through a subpoena to Microsoft, to collect the IP usage records and identity information for email accounts owned by over 100 environmental activists, journalists and attorneys. The oil giant is demanding the records in an attempt to cull together a lawsuit which alleges that the company was the victim of a conspiracy in the $18.2 billion judgment against it for dumping 18.5 billion gallons of oil waste in the Ecuadorean Amazon, causing untold damage to the rainforest. The "sweeping" subpoena was one of three issued to Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft. "Environmental advocates have the right to speak anonymously and travel without their every move and association being exposed to Chevron," said Marcia Hofmann, Senior Staff Attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation , who—along with environmental rights group EarthRights International (ERI)—had filed a motion last fall to "quash" the subpoenas. "These sweeping subpoenas create a chilling effect among those who have spoken out against the oil giant's activities in Ecuador," she added at the time. According to ERI, the subpoena demands the personal information about each account holder as well as the IP addresses associated with every login to each account over a nine-year period. "This could allow Chevron to determine the countries, states, cities or even buildings where the account-holders were checking their email," they write, "so as to 'infer the movements of the users over the relevant period and might permit Chevron to makes inferences about some of the user’s professional and personal relationships.'" In their statement about the ruling, ERI notes that the argument given by presiding US District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan—who was previously accused of prejudice against the Ecuadorians and their lawyers—was as "breathtaking as the subpoena itself." They continue: According to Judge Kaplan, none of the account holders could benefit from First Amendment protections since the account holders had “not shown that they were U.S. citizens.” Now, let’s break this down. The account-holders in this case were proceeding anonymously, which the First Amendment permits. Because of this, Judge Kaplan was provided with no information about the account holders’ residency or places of birth. It is somewhat amazing then, that Judge Kaplan assumed that the account holders were not US citizens. As far as I know, a judge has never before made this assumption when presented with a First Amendment claim. We have to ask then: on what basis did Judge Kaplan reach out and make this assumption? -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. !DSPAM:2676,51e33616201489095215003! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 15 09:36:21 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:36:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN Durban sessions Message-ID: Hi One hour from now at 16:30 Durban time there is an session that may be of interest to IGF folks, and there's remote participation. Internet Governance Update http://durban47.icann.org/node/39661 Also, I think there was some discussion here previously about closed generics. NCUC has a workshop on that Wednesday: The Debate on Closed Generic Top Level Domains, 17 July 2013, 13:30-15:00 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/NCUC+Workshop%3A+The+Debate+on+Closed+Generic+Top+Level+Domains%2C+Hall+4D%2C+Wednesday+17+July+2013%2C+13%3A30-15%3A00 Cheers, Bill ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jul 15 10:38:22 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:38:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN 47 Internet Governance Session live Message-ID: Dear All, ICANN47 in Durban: Internet Governance Session is live http://durban47.icann.org/node/39661 Twitter: #ICANN47 Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jul 15 10:47:14 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:47:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] EPIC petition Message-ID: >From Marc Rotenberg: "Also, please make sure everyone knows about the EPIC petition: http://www.epic.org/NSApetition/ Unlike petitions to Congress, the EPIC petition to Alexander has legal force and could lead to a public rule making on the NSA's domestic surveillance program." -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de Tue Jul 16 09:51:51 2013 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:51:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness Message-ID: <039001ce822b$a137b3f0$e3a71bd0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> Am I the only one who has a problem with such early timelines? Is this a recommendation from the MAG? It will simply not work out. Sandra Von: sandra at eurodig.org [mailto:sandra at eurodig.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:47 An: 'IGF' Betreff: AW: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness Dear IGF Secretariat, I raised this issue already but like to draw your attention again. For some organisations or companies it is not possible to decide on such an early stage who will participate in a session in October. Among them are organisations like the European Commission or ETNO. I have been informed that they will participate in our workshop (no. 40), but can only decide on a later stage which person will be sent to Bali. I assume this is not only the case for our session, but applies also to other organisers. While I can understand the demand, to get things sorted out on an early stage, I consider this way of moving forward is not feasible. Kind regards Sandra Hoferichter Von: Sourakatou Ramanou BIAOU [mailto:SBIAOU at unog.ch] Im Auftrag von IGF Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:29 Betreff: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness Dear Workshop Proponent, Kindly note that the final deadline for editing your workshop proposal(s) is 18 July 2013. Once this date has passed, you will not be able to make changes to your proposal(s) anymore, including panellists registration and confirmation. Please also bear in mind that registering the name of an organization is not sufficient. Each panellist should be an individual. We thank you for your continued interest in IGF and valued contribution to IGF 2013. Best regards, IGF Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Tue Jul 16 09:57:53 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:57:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> You are definitely not alone in your views. It is unreasonable, and it is part of why we all see the same voices over represented every year: session organisers choose people they know will be there because these deadlines make that the only choice they have. sandra hoferichter wrote: >Am I the only one who has a problem with such early timelines? Is this >a >recommendation from the MAG? It will simply not work out. > > > >Sandra > > > >Von: sandra at eurodig.org [mailto:sandra at eurodig.org] >Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:47 >An: 'IGF' >Betreff: AW: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal >completeness > > > >Dear IGF Secretariat, > > > >I raised this issue already but like to draw your attention again. For >some >organisations or companies it is not possible to decide on such an >early >stage who will participate in a session in October. Among them are >organisations like the European Commission or ETNO. I have been >informed >that they will participate in our workshop (no. 40), but can only >decide on >a later stage which person will be sent to Bali. I assume this is not >only >the case for our session, but applies also to other organisers. > > > >While I can understand the demand, to get things sorted out on an early >stage, I consider this way of moving forward is not feasible. > > > >Kind regards > > > >Sandra Hoferichter > > > >Von: Sourakatou Ramanou BIAOU [mailto:SBIAOU at unog.ch] Im Auftrag von >IGF >Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:29 >Betreff: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal >completeness > > > >Dear Workshop Proponent, > >Kindly note that the final deadline for editing your workshop >proposal(s) is >18 July 2013. Once this date has passed, you will not be able to make >changes to your proposal(s) anymore, including panellists registration >and >confirmation. > >Please also bear in mind that registering the name of an organization >is not >sufficient. Each panellist should be an individual. > >We thank you for your continued interest in IGF and valued contribution >to >IGF 2013. > >Best regards, >IGF Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Tue Jul 16 12:09:13 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:09:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> Message-ID: I had a quick communication with Chengetai, and what I understand from him and the website is that accepted workshops (81 according to the website at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-status-) should have as much information (confirmed panelist names) as possible by July 18th, because editing of workshops and panelists will be closed for two weeks while the Secretariat sets up a workshop schedule, using the currently available information to avoid conflicts in presenters/panelists schedules. Printing of information will also be based on information available on July 18th. He said: 'The deadline is meant just so that we can plan and schedule the workshops according to the panelists indicated by the workshop organisers. Also for the printing. ' And... 'I do understand that things may change and people may want to add or delete panelists. But after the 18th this will be for informational purposes only. The workshop organizer cannot ask the Secretariat to reschedule their workshops based on these updates the onus will be on the workshop organiser to find details another workshop organiser willing to swop.' And... 'With this understanding we can freeze changes for 2 weeks then open it up again for additional changes. But all workshops will be processed according to their status on the 18 July deadline. ' I hope this helps a bit. You might ask your panelists to confirm, with the proviso that they will present remotely if they cannot be in Bali. For panelist info, it looks to me (not confirmed, this is conjecture) that you can upload panelist info without confirming. There will be support for remote panelists, which is one way of enlarging the group of available experts to include new voices. Let me know if I can help in any way ... Good luck with this amazing task you/we are taking on. It's incredible what can be achieved by volunteer energy! Ginger On 16 July 2013 08:57, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > You are definitely not alone in your views. It is unreasonable, and it is > part of why we all see the same voices over represented every year: session > organisers choose people they know will be there because these deadlines > make that the only choice they have. > > > sandra hoferichter wrote: >> >> Am I the only one who has a problem with such early timelines? Is this >> a recommendation from the MAG? It will simply not work out. >> >> >> >> Sandra >> >> >> >> *Von:* sandra at eurodig.org [mailto:sandra at eurodig.org] >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:47 >> *An:* 'IGF' >> *Betreff:* AW: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal >> completeness >> >> >> >> Dear IGF Secretariat, >> >> >> >> I raised this issue already but like to draw your attention again. For >> some organisations or companies it is not possible to decide on such an >> early stage who will participate in a session in October. Among them are >> organisations like the European Commission or ETNO. I have been informed >> that they will participate in our workshop (no. 40), but can only decide on >> a later stage which person will be sent to Bali. I assume this is not only >> the case for our session, but applies also to other organisers. >> >> >> >> While I can understand the demand, to get things sorted out on an early >> stage, I consider this way of moving forward is not feasible. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Sandra Hoferichter >> >> >> >> *Von:* Sourakatou Ramanou BIAOU [mailto:SBIAOU at unog.ch] *Im Auftrag von >> *IGF >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:29 >> *Betreff:* Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal >> completeness >> >> >> >> Dear Workshop Proponent, >> >> Kindly note that the final deadline for editing your workshop proposal(s) >> is 18 July 2013. Once this date has passed, you will not be able to make >> changes to your proposal(s) anymore, including panellists registration and >> confirmation. >> >> Please also bear in mind that registering the name of an organization is >> not sufficient. Each panellist should be an individual. >> >> We thank you for your continued interest in IGF and valued contribution >> to IGF 2013. >> >> Best regards, >> IGF Secretariat >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 16 12:21:23 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:21:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> Message-ID: <0000013fe849471a-2f2fb473-0e18-4411-9899-21384086e879-000000@email.amazonses.com> This is useful information. However, to me it is still unreasonably early. Why is it not possible to print things later so they can be more accurate? I understand the need not to change the time and date of sessions after a certain point, and making the organisers of sessions work this out between themselves. I don't see it as reasonably to require freezing information for printing 90 days early. On 16 Jul 2013, at 18:09, Ginger Paque wrote: > I had a quick communication with Chengetai, and what I understand from him and the website is that accepted workshops (81 according to the website at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-status-) should have as much information (confirmed panelist names) as possible by July 18th, because editing of workshops and panelists will be closed for two weeks while the Secretariat sets up a workshop schedule, using the currently available information to avoid conflicts in presenters/panelists schedules. Printing of information will also be based on information available on July 18th. > > He said: > > 'The deadline is meant just so that we can plan and schedule the workshops according to the panelists indicated by the workshop organisers. Also for the printing. ' > > And... 'I do understand that things may change and people may want to add or delete panelists. But after the 18th this will be for informational purposes only. The workshop organizer cannot ask the Secretariat to reschedule their workshops based on these updates the onus will be on the workshop organiser to find details another workshop organiser willing to swop.' > > And... > 'With this understanding we can freeze changes for 2 weeks then open it up again for additional changes. But all workshops will be processed according to their status on the 18 July deadline. ' > > I hope this helps a bit. > You might ask your panelists to confirm, with the proviso that they will present remotely if they cannot be in Bali. > For panelist info, it looks to me (not confirmed, this is conjecture) that you can upload panelist info without confirming. > > There will be support for remote panelists, which is one way of enlarging the group of available experts to include new voices. Let me know if I can help in any way ... > > Good luck with this amazing task you/we are taking on. It's incredible what can be achieved by volunteer energy! > Ginger > > > On 16 July 2013 08:57, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > You are definitely not alone in your views. It is unreasonable, and it is part of why we all see the same voices over represented every year: session organisers choose people they know will be there because these deadlines make that the only choice they have. > > > > sandra hoferichter wrote: > Am I the only one who has a problem with such early timelines? Is this a recommendation from the MAG? It will simply not work out. > > > > > > > Sandra > > > > > > > Von: sandra at eurodig.org [mailto:sandra at eurodig.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:47 > An: 'IGF' > Betreff: AW: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness > > > > > > > Dear IGF Secretariat, > > > > > > > I raised this issue already but like to draw your attention again. For some organisations or companies it is not possible to decide on such an early stage who will participate in a session in October. Among them are organisations like the European Commission or ETNO. I have been informed that they will participate in our workshop (no. 40), but can only decide on a later stage which person will be sent to Bali. I assume this is not only the case for our session, but applies also to other organisers. > > > > > > > While I can understand the demand, to get things sorted out on an early stage, I consider this way of moving forward is not feasible. > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > Sandra Hoferichter > > > > > > > Von: Sourakatou Ramanou BIAOU [mailto:SBIAOU at unog.ch] Im Auftrag von IGF > Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:29 > Betreff: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness > > > > > > Dear Workshop Proponent, > > Kindly note that the final deadline for editing your workshop proposal(s) is 18 July 2013. Once this date has passed, you will not be able to make changes to your proposal(s) anymore, including panellists registration and confirmation. > > Please also bear in mind that registering the name of an organization is not sufficient. Each panellist should be an individual. > > We thank you for your continued interest in IGF and valued contribution to IGF 2013. > > Best regards, > IGF Secretariat > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Tue Jul 16 15:07:35 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:07:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: <0000013fe849471a-2f2fb473-0e18-4411-9899-21384086e879-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <0000013fe849471a-2f2fb473-0e18-4411-9899-21384086e879-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: I agree, it is very early, and difficult to comply. Note that Chengatai also said that workshops will be assessed as indicated, and if a workshop has very few or no panellists confirmed, for example, they may lose their slot; this should not be seen as an extension of the deadline to meet the requirements. If anyone has any questions, I would suggest contacting the secretariat at igf @ unog.ch (delete the spaces) with your specific information and comments. I would also hope that the MAG members on this list are taking note and doing what they can to support our workshop organization. Thanks, all, Ginger On 16 July 2013 11:21, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > This is useful information. However, to me it is still unreasonably early. > Why is it not possible to print things later so they can be more accurate? > > I understand the need not to change the time and date of sessions after a > certain point, and making the organisers of sessions work this out between > themselves. I don't see it as reasonably to require freezing information > for printing 90 days early. > > On 16 Jul 2013, at 18:09, Ginger Paque wrote: > > I had a quick communication with Chengetai, and what I understand from him > and the website is that accepted workshops (81 according to the website at > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-status-) should have as much > information (confirmed panelist names) as possible by July 18th, because > editing of workshops and panelists will be closed for two weeks while the > Secretariat sets up a workshop schedule, using the currently available > information to avoid conflicts in presenters/panelists schedules. Printing > of information will also be based on information available on July 18th. > > He said: > > 'The deadline is meant just so that we can plan and schedule the > workshops according to the panelists indicated by the workshop organisers. > Also for the printing. ' > > And... 'I do understand that things may change and people may want to add > or delete panelists. But after the 18th this will be for informational > purposes only. The workshop organizer cannot ask the Secretariat to > reschedule their workshops based on these updates the onus will be on the > workshop organiser to find details another workshop organiser willing to > swop.' > > And... > 'With this understanding we can freeze changes for 2 weeks then open it up > again for additional changes. But all workshops will be processed > according to their status on the 18 July deadline. ' > > I hope this helps a bit. > You might ask your panelists to confirm, with the proviso that they will > present remotely if they cannot be in Bali. > For panelist info, it looks to me (not confirmed, this is conjecture) that > you can upload panelist info without confirming. > > There will be support for remote panelists, which is one way of enlarging > the group of available experts to include new voices. Let me know if I can > help in any way ... > > Good luck with this amazing task you/we are taking on. It's incredible > what can be achieved by volunteer energy! > Ginger > > > On 16 July 2013 08:57, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> You are definitely not alone in your views. It is unreasonable, and it >> is part of why we all see the same voices over represented every year: >> session organisers choose people they know will be there because these >> deadlines make that the only choice they have. >> >> >> sandra hoferichter wrote: >>> >>> Am I the only one who has a problem with such early timelines? Is this a >>> recommendation from the MAG? It will simply not work out. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sandra >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Von:* sandra at eurodig.org [mailto:sandra at eurodig.org] >>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:47 >>> *An:* 'IGF' >>> *Betreff:* AW: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal >>> completeness >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear IGF Secretariat, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I raised this issue already but like to draw your attention again. For >>> some organisations or companies it is not possible to decide on such an >>> early stage who will participate in a session in October. Among them are >>> organisations like the European Commission or ETNO. I have been informed >>> that they will participate in our workshop (no. 40), but can only decide on >>> a later stage which person will be sent to Bali. I assume this is not only >>> the case for our session, but applies also to other organisers. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> While I can understand the demand, to get things sorted out on an early >>> stage, I consider this way of moving forward is not feasible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sandra Hoferichter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Von:* Sourakatou Ramanou BIAOU [mailto:SBIAOU at unog.ch] *Im Auftrag von >>> *IGF >>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:29 >>> *Betreff:* Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal >>> completeness >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Workshop Proponent, >>> >>> Kindly note that the final deadline for editing your workshop >>> proposal(s) is 18 July 2013. Once this date has passed, you will not be >>> able to make changes to your proposal(s) anymore, including panellists >>> registration and confirmation. >>> >>> Please also bear in mind that registering the name of an organization is >>> not sufficient. Each panellist should be an individual. >>> >>> We thank you for your continued interest in IGF and valued contribution >>> to IGF 2013. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> IGF Secretariat >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Jul 16 16:00:49 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:00:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> Message-ID: <51E5A671.2060607@wzb.eu> My workshop is still pending. I guess it is not the only one. I hope the secretariat will not excluse workshops from the program that havn't had the chance yet to put a panel together. jeanette Am 16.07.13 15:57, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > You are definitely not alone in your views. It is unreasonable, and it > is part of why we all see the same voices over represented every year: > session organisers choose people they know will be there because these > deadlines make that the only choice they have. > > > > sandra hoferichter wrote: > > Am I the only one who has a problem with such early timelines? Is > this a recommendation from the MAG? It will simply not work out. > > Sandra > > *Von:*sandra at eurodig.org [mailto:sandra at eurodig.org] > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:47 > *An:* 'IGF' > *Betreff:* AW: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal > completeness > > Dear IGF Secretariat, > > I raised this issue already but like to draw your attention again. > For some organisations or companies it is not possible to decide on > such an early stage who will participate in a session in October. > Among them are organisations like the European Commission or ETNO. I > have been informed that they will participate in our workshop (no. > 40), but can only decide on a later stage which person will be sent > to Bali. I assume this is not only the case for our session, but > applies also to other organisers. > > While I can understand the demand, to get things sorted out on an > early stage, I consider this way of moving forward is not feasible. > > Kind regards > > Sandra Hoferichter > > *Von:*Sourakatou Ramanou BIAOU [mailto:SBIAOU at unog.ch] *Im Auftrag > von *IGF > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:29 > *Betreff:* Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal > completeness > > Dear Workshop Proponent, > > Kindly note that the final deadline for editing your workshop > proposal(s) is 18 July 2013. Once this date has passed, you will not > be able to make changes to your proposal(s) anymore, including > panellists registration and confirmation. > > Please also bear in mind that registering the name of an > organization is not sufficient. Each panellist should be an individual. > > We thank you for your continued interest in IGF and valued > contribution to IGF 2013. > > Best regards, > IGF Secretariat > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 16 17:19:15 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:19:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: <51E5A671.2060607@wzb.eu> References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <51E5A671.2060607@wzb.eu> Message-ID: more than one we are working on is too. +1 to your points. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >My workshop is still pending. I guess it is not the only one. I hope >the >secretariat will not excluse workshops from the program that havn't had > >the chance yet to put a panel together. >jeanette > > >Am 16.07.13 15:57, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: >> You are definitely not alone in your views. It is unreasonable, and >it >> is part of why we all see the same voices over represented every >year: >> session organisers choose people they know will be there because >these >> deadlines make that the only choice they have. >> >> >> >> sandra hoferichter wrote: >> >> Am I the only one who has a problem with such early timelines? Is >> this a recommendation from the MAG? It will simply not work out. >> >> Sandra >> >> *Von:*sandra at eurodig.org [mailto:sandra at eurodig.org] >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:47 >> *An:* 'IGF' >> *Betreff:* AW: Final deadline and requirements for workshop >proposal >> completeness >> >> Dear IGF Secretariat, >> >> I raised this issue already but like to draw your attention >again. >> For some organisations or companies it is not possible to decide >on >> such an early stage who will participate in a session in October. >> Among them are organisations like the European Commission or >ETNO. I >> have been informed that they will participate in our workshop >(no. >> 40), but can only decide on a later stage which person will be >sent >> to Bali. I assume this is not only the case for our session, but >> applies also to other organisers. >> >> While I can understand the demand, to get things sorted out on an >> early stage, I consider this way of moving forward is not >feasible. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Sandra Hoferichter >> >> *Von:*Sourakatou Ramanou BIAOU [mailto:SBIAOU at unog.ch] *Im >Auftrag >> von *IGF >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:29 >> *Betreff:* Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal >> completeness >> >> Dear Workshop Proponent, >> >> Kindly note that the final deadline for editing your workshop >> proposal(s) is 18 July 2013. Once this date has passed, you will >not >> be able to make changes to your proposal(s) anymore, including >> panellists registration and confirmation. >> >> Please also bear in mind that registering the name of an >> organization is not sufficient. Each panellist should be an >individual. >> >> We thank you for your continued interest in IGF and valued >> contribution to IGF 2013. >> >> Best regards, >> IGF Secretariat >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jul 17 03:23:11 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:53:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> Message-ID: Ginger is that an official proviso - as I don't remember it being there in the original request for proposals. Maybe I'm wrong? -C On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > with the proviso that they will present remotely if they cannot be in Bali. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 17 05:46:38 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 10:46:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> Message-ID: In message , at 11:09:13 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Ginger Paque writes >I had a quick communication with Chengetai, and what I understand from >him and the website is that accepted workshops (81 according to the >website at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-status-) should have >as much information (confirmed panelist names) as possible by July >18th, because editing of workshops and panelists will be closed for two >weeks while the Secretariat sets up a workshop schedule, using the >currently available information to avoid conflicts in >presenters/panelists schedules. Printing of information will also be >based on information available on July 18th This seems entirely reasonable (and it's already a deadline that's been extended). It's not as if the deadlines don't happen every year, and yet people always leave it too late to arrange their workshops. Getting the programme finalised (early August) less than three months before a meeting, might be considered by some "leaving it a bit late" in any case. -- 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 ginger at paque.net Wed Jul 17 07:03:40 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 06:03:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> Message-ID: NO! Definitely not official--that is my own personal suggestion. For our workshop, I found that my preferred discussants could not always confirm they would be in Bali. So I asked them to confirm they would participate--and that if they could not be in Bali physically, that they would join us remotely. For me, this was a way to confirm my panel participants, even though they did not yet have funding to travel to Bali. Chengetai did confirm that this is a viable option and that remote presenters will have tech support. Best, Ginger On 17 July 2013 02:23, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Ginger is that an official proviso - as I don't remember it being there in > the original request for proposals. Maybe I'm wrong? > > -C > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> with the proviso that they will present remotely if they cannot be in >> Bali. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Wed Jul 17 07:31:13 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:31:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> Message-ID: <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> I am doing this too, but I worry: past history is that the first day or two of the IGF the Internet can be less than reliable. If we have many remote presenters because of this unreasonable expectation of advance notice and they can't present, what will events be like? Still what can you do. On 17 Jul 2013, at 13:03, Ginger Paque wrote: > NO! Definitely not official--that is my own personal suggestion. For our workshop, I found that my preferred discussants could not always confirm they would be in Bali. So I asked them to confirm they would participate--and that if they could not be in Bali physically, that they would join us remotely. For me, this was a way to confirm my panel participants, even though they did not yet have funding to travel to Bali. Chengetai did confirm that this is a viable option and that remote presenters will have tech support. > Best, Ginger > > > On 17 July 2013 02:23, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Ginger is that an official proviso - as I don't remember it being there in the original request for proposals. Maybe I'm wrong? > > -C > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > with the proviso that they will present remotely if they cannot be in Bali. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Wed Jul 17 08:06:52 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:06:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: Nick and all, I understand and share your concern. As a strong proponent of e- and remote participation, I will reiterate to Chengetai the importance of excellent and timely tech and Internet training and support for remote presenters and participants. This is one important reason to note whether your panellists will present remotely (there is a field for it in the workshop form), so the organizers are aware of the approximate number of remote panellists, and can prepare for it. The RP prep work is not easy, and is one reason workshop details must be available quite early on. If you think about it, you will realise that the IGC exists online, not in any physical space. We have the experience and the motivation to take advantage of online participation for the IGF meeting as well. I do not know who/what/how RP will be managed for Bali, but I know it is a high priority for the IGF Secretariat. We can also be prepared for glitches: consider asking panellists to pre-record and send a backup intervention in case there are problems. It might save them in case of virtual jet lag, if they must present at 2 a.m. local time, and their alarm clock doesn't go off. A copy of a .ppt or speaking notes might allow someone else to step in if necessary (De Williams did this for me once in the Caribbean. I was supposed to present remotely, but had local Internet problems. Since the organizers had my .ppt, De gave my presentation on site, and did a great job). We have switched to Skype if WebEx has problems; we have read out interventions sent in by email or Skype when there is a problem. I think all of you know that onsite presentation takes a lot of preparation, time and energy. So does RP, sometimes--often even--not as much. I think we should put the time and effort into good RP when that is our best option, the same way we do when being on site is our best option. Please let me know if I can help in any way during this process. If I can, I am willing. Good luck, Ginger On 17 July 2013 06:31, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I am doing this too, but I worry: past history is that the first day or > two of the IGF the Internet can be less than reliable. If we have many > remote presenters because of this unreasonable expectation of advance > notice and they can't present, what will events be like? > > Still what can you do. > > On 17 Jul 2013, at 13:03, Ginger Paque wrote: > > NO! Definitely not official--that is my own personal suggestion. For our > workshop, I found that my preferred discussants could not always confirm > they would be in Bali. So I asked them to confirm they would > participate--and that if they could not be in Bali physically, that they > would join us remotely. For me, this was a way to confirm my panel > participants, even though they did not yet have funding to travel to Bali. > Chengetai did confirm that this is a viable option and that remote > presenters will have tech support. > Best, Ginger > > > On 17 July 2013 02:23, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > >> Ginger is that an official proviso - as I don't remember it being there >> in the original request for proposals. Maybe I'm wrong? >> >> -C >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> with the proviso that they will present remotely if they cannot be in >>> Bali. >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Wed Jul 17 08:09:40 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:09:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <0000013fec892776-c76cf36e-cc79-423a-8fc0-35eaec4c6df6-000000@email.amazonses.com> Dear Ginger, It is certainly the case that RP is a lot of work (for all involved) though it has great benefits. I remember very vividly how much work it is from my days being in charge of it at ICANN! :) I know the Secretariat does the best that it can. Frankly, what they do given that it is almost all-volunteers doing it is pretty miraculous. That said, I do think that the way in which things are structured, including the deadline issues, does not really produce the best result for anyone. On 17 Jul 2013, at 14:06, Ginger Paque wrote: > Nick and all, > I understand and share your concern. As a strong proponent of e- and remote participation, I will reiterate to Chengetai the importance of excellent and timely tech and Internet training and support for remote presenters and participants. This is one important reason to note whether your panellists will present remotely (there is a field for it in the workshop form), so the organizers are aware of the approximate number of remote panellists, and can prepare for it. The RP prep work is not easy, and is one reason workshop details must be available quite early on. > > If you think about it, you will realise that the IGC exists online, not in any physical space. We have the experience and the motivation to take advantage of online participation for the IGF meeting as well. I do not know who/what/how RP will be managed for Bali, but I know it is a high priority for the IGF Secretariat. > > We can also be prepared for glitches: consider asking panellists to pre-record and send a backup intervention in case there are problems. It might save them in case of virtual jet lag, if they must present at 2 a.m. local time, and their alarm clock doesn't go off. A copy of a .ppt or speaking notes might allow someone else to step in if necessary (De Williams did this for me once in the Caribbean. I was supposed to present remotely, but had local Internet problems. Since the organizers had my .ppt, De gave my presentation on site, and did a great job). We have switched to Skype if WebEx has problems; we have read out interventions sent in by email or Skype when there is a problem. > > I think all of you know that onsite presentation takes a lot of preparation, time and energy. So does RP, sometimes--often even--not as much. I think we should put the time and effort into good RP when that is our best option, the same way we do when being on site is our best option. > > Please let me know if I can help in any way during this process. If I can, I am willing. > Good luck, > Ginger > > > On 17 July 2013 06:31, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I am doing this too, but I worry: past history is that the first day or two of the IGF the Internet can be less than reliable. If we have many remote presenters because of this unreasonable expectation of advance notice and they can't present, what will events be like? > > Still what can you do. > > On 17 Jul 2013, at 13:03, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> NO! Definitely not official--that is my own personal suggestion. For our workshop, I found that my preferred discussants could not always confirm they would be in Bali. So I asked them to confirm they would participate--and that if they could not be in Bali physically, that they would join us remotely. For me, this was a way to confirm my panel participants, even though they did not yet have funding to travel to Bali. Chengetai did confirm that this is a viable option and that remote presenters will have tech support. >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> On 17 July 2013 02:23, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >> Ginger is that an official proviso - as I don't remember it being there in the original request for proposals. Maybe I'm wrong? >> >> -C >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> with the proviso that they will present remotely if they cannot be in Bali. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jul 17 08:23:16 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:23:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: <0000013fec892776-c76cf36e-cc79-423a-8fc0-35eaec4c6df6-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> <0000013fec892776-c76cf36e-cc79-423a-8fc0-35eaec4c6df6-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <20130717142316.290b4c6a@quill> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I know the Secretariat does the best that it can. Frankly, what they > do given that it is almost all-volunteers doing it is pretty > miraculous. That said, I do think that the way in which things are > structured, including the deadline issues, does not really produce > the best result for anyone. Agreed. Putting deadlines later without making it impossible for them to do what they'll need to do between the deadline and the IGF would probably require an increase in paid secretariat staff. I think that this is probably primarily a funding problem. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Jul 17 09:03:29 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:03:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: <0000013fec892776-c76cf36e-cc79-423a-8fc0-35eaec4c6df6-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> <0000013fec892776-c76cf36e-cc79-423a-8fc0-35eaec4c6df6-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: Following Ginger and Nick - it sounds as if the physical location of this IGF in Bali, and the current financial situation, taken together, will provide splendid encouragement for remote participation (RP), at least to those of us from the "other" side of the world. It may also help to bring about the type of inclusion that people have been asking for, in which workshops are exercises in participation rather than exercises in listening. Since this is an enhancement that was sought we could look at it as an opportunity for innovation in process?? I am fortunate in that I have funding and will be in Bali. I'll help in any way I can. Deirdre (De) On 17 July 2013 08:09, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Ginger, > > It is certainly the case that RP is a lot of work (for all involved) > though it has great benefits. I remember very vividly how much work it is > from my days being in charge of it at ICANN! :) > > I know the Secretariat does the best that it can. Frankly, what they do > given that it is almost all-volunteers doing it is pretty miraculous. That > said, I do think that the way in which things are structured, including the > deadline issues, does not really produce the best result for anyone. > > > On 17 Jul 2013, at 14:06, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Nick and all, > I understand and share your concern. As a strong proponent of e- and > remote participation, I will reiterate to Chengetai the importance of > excellent and timely tech and Internet training and support for remote > presenters and participants. This is one important reason to note whether > your panellists will present remotely (there is a field for it in the > workshop form), so the organizers are aware of the approximate number of > remote panellists, and can prepare for it. The RP prep work is not easy, > and is one reason workshop details must be available quite early on. > > If you think about it, you will realise that the IGC exists online, not in > any physical space. We have the experience and the motivation to take > advantage of online participation for the IGF meeting as well. I do not > know who/what/how RP will be managed for Bali, but I know it is a high > priority for the IGF Secretariat. > > We can also be prepared for glitches: consider asking panellists to > pre-record and send a backup intervention in case there are problems. It > might save them in case of virtual jet lag, if they must present at 2 a.m. > local time, and their alarm clock doesn't go off. A copy of a .ppt or > speaking notes might allow someone else to step in if necessary (De > Williams did this for me once in the Caribbean. I was supposed to present > remotely, but had local Internet problems. Since the organizers had my > .ppt, De gave my presentation on site, and did a great job). We have > switched to Skype if WebEx has problems; we have read out interventions > sent in by email or Skype when there is a problem. > > I think all of you know that onsite presentation takes a lot of > preparation, time and energy. So does RP, sometimes--often even--not as > much. I think we should put the time and effort into good RP when that is > our best option, the same way we do when being on site is our best option. > > Please let me know if I can help in any way during this process. If I can, > I am willing. > Good luck, > Ginger > > > On 17 July 2013 06:31, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> I am doing this too, but I worry: past history is that the first day or >> two of the IGF the Internet can be less than reliable. If we have many >> remote presenters because of this unreasonable expectation of advance >> notice and they can't present, what will events be like? >> >> Still what can you do. >> >> On 17 Jul 2013, at 13:03, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> NO! Definitely not official--that is my own personal suggestion. For >> our workshop, I found that my preferred discussants could not always >> confirm they would be in Bali. So I asked them to confirm they would >> participate--and that if they could not be in Bali physically, that they >> would join us remotely. For me, this was a way to confirm my panel >> participants, even though they did not yet have funding to travel to Bali. >> Chengetai did confirm that this is a viable option and that remote >> presenters will have tech support. >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> On 17 July 2013 02:23, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >> >>> Ginger is that an official proviso - as I don't remember it being there >>> in the original request for proposals. Maybe I'm wrong? >>> >>> -C >>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> with the proviso that they will present remotely if they cannot be in >>>> Bali. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Jul 17 13:30:00 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:30:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] U.S. public opinion shifting in favor of civil liberties v national security Message-ID: Good thing to be coupled with the following Stratfor Report: Keeping the NSA in Perspective Geopolitical Weekly TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2013 - 04:01 http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/keeping-nsa-perspective?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130716&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=2528434adb954a2ab29d03e4952b7959 Read more: Keeping the NSA in Perspective | Stratfor Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook *By George Friedman* In June 1942, the bulk of the Japanese fleet sailed to seize the Island of Midway. Had Midway fallen, Pearl Harbor would have been at risk and U.S. submarines, unable to refuel at Midway, would have been much less effective. Most of all, the Japanese wanted to surprise the Americans and draw them into a naval battle they couldn't win. The Japanese fleet was vast. The Americans had two carriers intact in addition to one that was badly damaged. The United States had only one advantage: It had broken Japan's naval code and thus knew a great deal of the country's battle plan. In large part because of this cryptologic advantage, a handful of American ships devastated the Japanese fleet and changed the balance of power in the Pacific permanently. This -- and the advantage given to the allies by penetrating German codes -- taught the Americans about the centrality of communications code breaking. It is reasonable to argue that World War II would have ended much less satisfactorily for the United States had its military not broken German and Japanese codes. Where the Americans had previously been guided to a great extent by Henry Stimson's famous principle that "gentlemen do not read each other's mail," by the end of World War II they were obsessed with stealing and reading all relevant communications. The National Security Agency evolved out of various post-war organizations charged with this task. In 1951, all of these disparate efforts were organized under the NSA to capture and decrypt communications of other governments around the world -- particularly those of the Soviet Union, which was ruled by Josef Stalin, and of China, which the United States was fighting in 1951. How far the NSA could go in pursuing this was governed only by the extent to which such communications were electronic and the extent to which the NSA could intercept and decrypt them. The amount of communications other countries sent electronically surged after World War II yet represented only a fraction of their communications. Resources were limited, and given that the primary threat to the United States was posed by nation-states, the NSA focused on state communications. But the principle on which the NSA was founded has remained, and as the world has come to rely more heavily on electronic and digital communication, the scope of the NSA's commission has expanded. What drove all of this was Pearl Harbor. The United States knew that the Japanese were going to attack. They did not know where or when. The result was disaster. All American strategic thinking during the Cold War was built around Pearl Harbor -- the deep fear that the Soviets would launch a first strike that the United States did not know about. The fear of an unforeseen nuclear attack gave the NSA leave to be as aggressive as possible in penetrating not only Soviet codes but also the codes of other nations. You don't know what you don't know, and given the stakes, the United States became obsessed with knowing everything it possibly could. In order to collect data about nuclear attacks, you must also collect vast amounts of data that have nothing to do with nuclear attacks. The Cold War with the Soviet Union had to do with more than just nuclear exchanges, and the information on what the Soviets were doing -- what governments they had penetrated, who was working for them -- was a global issue. But you couldn't judge what was important and what was unimportant until after you read it. Thus the mechanics of assuaging fears about a "nuclear Pearl Harbor" rapidly devolved into a global collection system, whereby vast amounts of information were collected regardless of their pertinence to the Cold War. There was nothing that was not potentially important, and a highly focused collection strategy could miss vital things. So the focus grew, the technology advanced and the penetration of private communications logically followed. This was not confined to the United States. The Soviet Union, China, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, India and any country with foreign policy interests spent a great deal on collecting electronic information. Much of what was collected on all sides was not read because far more was collected than could possibly be absorbed by the staff. Still, it was collected. It became a vast intrusion mitigated only by inherent inefficiency or the strength of the target's encryption. Justified Fear The Pearl Harbor dread declined with the end of the Cold War -- until Sept. 11, 2001. In order to understand 9/11's impact, a clear memory of our own fears must be recalled. As individuals, Americans were stunned by 9/11 not only because of its size and daring but also because it was unexpected. Terrorist attacks were not uncommon, but this one raised another question: What comes next? Unlike Timothy McVeigh, it appeared that al Qaeda was capable of other, perhaps greater acts of terrorism. Fear gripped the land. It was a justified fear, and while it resonated across the world, it struck the United States particularly hard. Part of the fear was that U.S. intelligence had failed again to predict the attack. The public did not know what would come next, nor did it believe that U.S. intelligence had any idea. A federal commission on 9/11 was created to study the defense failure. It charged that the president had ignored warnings. The focus in those days was on intelligence failure. The CIA admitted it lacked the human sources inside al Qaeda. By default the only way to track al Qaeda was via their communications. It was to be the NSA's job . As we have written, al Qaeda was a global, sparse and dispersed network. It appeared to be tied together by burying itself in a vast new communications network: the Internet. At one point, al Qaeda had communicated by embedding messages in pictures transmitted via the Internet. They appeared to be using free and anonymous Hotmail accounts. To find Japanese communications, you looked in the electronic ether. To find al Qaeda's message, you looked on the Internet. But with a global, sparse and dispersed network you are looking for at most a few hundred men in the midst of billions of people, and a few dozen messages among hundreds of billions. And given the architecture of the Internet, the messages did not have to originate where the sender was located or be read where the reader was located. It was like looking for a needle in a haystack. The needle can be found only if you are willing to sift the entire haystack. That led to PRISM and other NSA programs. The mission was to stop any further al Qaeda attacks. The means was to break into their communications and read their plans and orders. To find their plans and orders, it was necessary to examine all communications. The anonymity of the Internet and the uncertainties built into its system meant that any message could be one of a tiny handful of messages. Nothing could be ruled out. Everything was suspect. This was reality, not paranoia. It also meant that the NSA could not exclude the communications of American citizens because some al Qaeda members were citizens. This was an attack on the civil rights of Americans, but it was not an unprecedented attack. During World War II, the United States imposed postal censorship on military personnel, and the FBI intercepted selected letters sent in the United States and from overseas. The government created a system of voluntary media censorship that was less than voluntary in many ways. Most famously, the United States abrogated the civil rights of citizens of Japanese origin by seizing property and transporting them to other locations. Members of pro-German organizations were harassed and arrested even prior to Pearl Harbor. Decades earlier, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, effectively allowing the arrest and isolation of citizens without due process. There are two major differences between the war on terror and the aforementioned wars. First, there was a declaration of war in World War II. Second, there is a provision in the Constitution that allows the president to suspend habeas corpus in the event of a rebellion. The declaration of war imbues the president with certain powers as commander in chief -- as does rebellion. Neither of these conditions was put in place to justify NSA programs such as PRISM. Moreover, partly because of the constitutional basis of the actions and partly because of the nature of the conflicts, World War II and the Civil War had a clear end, a point at which civil rights had to be restored or a process had to be created for their restoration. No such terminal point exists for the war on terror. As was witnessed at the Boston Marathon -- and in many instances over the past several centuries -- the ease with which improvised explosive devices can be assembled makes it possible for simple terrorist acts to be carried out cheaply and effectively. Some plots might be detectable by intercepting all communications, but obviously the Boston Marathon attack could not be predicted. The problem with the war on terror is that it has no criteria of success that is potentially obtainable. It defines no level of terrorism that is tolerable but has as its goal the elimination of all terrorism, not just from Islamic sources but from all sources. That is simply never going to happen and therefore, PRISM and its attendant programs will never end. These intrusions, unlike all prior ones, have set a condition for success that is unattainable, and therefore the suspension of civil rights is permanent. Without a constitutional amendment, formal declaration of war or declaration of a state of emergency, the executive branch has overridden fundamental limits on its powers and protections for citizens. Since World War II, the constitutional requirements for waging war have fallen by the wayside. President Harry S. Truman used a U.N resolution to justify the Korean War. President Lyndon Johnson justified an extended large-scale war with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, equating it to a declaration of war. The conceptual chaos of the war on terror left out any declaration, and it also included North Korea in the axis of evil the United States was fighting against. Former NSA contractor Edward Snowden is charged with aiding an enemy that has never been legally designated. Anyone who might contemplate terrorism is therefore an enemy. The enemy in this case was clear. It was the organization of al Qaeda but since that was not a rigid nation but an evolving group, the definition spread well beyond them to include any person contemplating an infinite number of actions. After all, how do you define terrorism, and how do you distinguish it from crime? Three thousand people died in the 9/11 attacks, and we know that al Qaeda wished to kill more because it has said that it intended to do so. Al Qaeda and other jihadist movements -- and indeed those unaffiliated with Islamic movements -- pose threats. Some of their members are American citizens, others are citizens of foreign nations. Preventing these attacks, rather than prosecuting in the aftermath, is important. I do not know enough about PRISM to even try to guess how useful it is. At the same time, the threat that PRISM is fighting must be kept in perspective. Some terrorist threats are dangerous, but you simply cannot stop every nut who wants to pop off a pipe bomb for a political cause. So the critical question is whether the danger posed by terrorism is sufficient to justify indifference to the spirit of the Constitution, despite the current state of the law. If it is, then formally declare war or declare a state of emergency. The danger of PRISM and other programs is that the decision to build it was not made after the Congress and the president were required to make a clear finding on war and peace. That was the point where they undermined the Constitution, and the American public is responsible for allowing them to do so. Defensible Origins, Dangerous Futures The emergence of programs such as PRISM was not the result of despots seeking to control the world. It had a much more clear, logical and defensible origin in our experiences of war and in legitimate fears of real dangers. The NSA was charged with stopping terrorism, and it devised a plan that was not nearly as secret as some claim. Obviously it was not as effective as hoped, or the Boston Marathon attack wouldn't have happened. If the program was meant to suppress dissent it has certainly failed, as the polls and the media of the past weeks show. The revelations about PRISM are far from new or interesting in themselves. The NSA was created with a charter to do these things, and given the state of technology it was inevitable that the NSA would be capturing communications around the world. Many leaks prior to Snowden's showed that the NSA was doing this. It would have been more newsworthy if the leak revealed the NSA had not been capturing all communications. But this does give us an opportunity to consider what has happened and to consider whether it is tolerable. The threat posed by PRISM and other programs is not what has been done with them but rather what could happen if they are permitted to survive. But this is not simply about the United States ending this program. The United States certainly is not the only country with such a program. But a reasonable start is for the country that claims to be most dedicated to its Constitution to adhere to it meticulously above and beyond the narrowest interpretation. This is not a path without danger. As Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." "Keeping the NSA in Perspective is republished with permission of Stratfor." Read more: Keeping the NSA in Perspective | Stratfor Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > > * > http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/public-opinion-shifts-on-security-liberty-balance/ > * > > Public Opinion Shifts on Security-Liberty BalanceBy NATE SILVER > > A new Quinnipiac poll has found a significant shift in public opinion on > the trade-off between civil liberties and national security. In the new > survey, released on Wednesday, 45 percent of the public said they thought > the government’s antiterrorism policies have “gone too far in restricting > the average person’s civil liberties” — as compared with 40 percent who > said they have “not gone far enough to adequately protect the country.” > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Jul 17 15:55:17 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 20:55:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> <0000013fec892776-c76cf36e-cc79-423a-8fc0-35eaec4c6df6-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: In message , at 09:03:29 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Deirdre Williams writes >it sounds as if the physical location of this IGF in Bali, and the >current financial situation, taken together, will provide splendid >encouragement for remote participation (RP), at least to those of us >from the "other" side of the world I'm afraid to say (and I have several scars) that having a meeting in quite such a high profile tourist destination is the kiss of death to many potential participants from stakeholders such as government and large corporations. Perhaps 20 years ago those participants would work harder to justify such a trip, but we live in different times now. This doesn't mean it's bad place, or the people there don't deserve such a meeting being brought to their doorstep. But it gives many attendees a significant hurdle. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Wed Jul 17 16:00:23 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:00:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> <0000013fec892776-c76cf36e-cc79-423a-8fc0-35eaec4c6df6-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <20067FAA-3060-40B5-A56D-D01D62AD8178@ccianet.org> Even worse for those of us who have to be in Bali for the IGF, and then a scant few weeks later for the WTO Ministerial ;) On 17 Jul 2013, at 21:55, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 09:03:29 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Deirdre Williams writes >> it sounds as if the physical location of this IGF in Bali, and the current financial situation, taken together, will provide splendid encouragement for remote participation (RP), at least to those of us from the "other" side of the world > > I'm afraid to say (and I have several scars) that having a meeting in quite such a high profile tourist destination is the kiss of death to many potential participants from stakeholders such as government and large corporations. Perhaps 20 years ago those participants would work harder to justify such a trip, but we live in different times now. > > This doesn't mean it's bad place, or the people there don't deserve such a meeting being brought to their doorstep. But it gives many attendees a significant hurdle. > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Jul 17 16:31:20 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 20:31:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: <20067FAA-3060-40B5-A56D-D01D62AD8178@ccianet.org> References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> <0000013fec892776-c76cf36e-cc79-423a-8fc0-35eaec4c6df6-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20067FAA-3060-40B5-A56D-D01D62AD8178@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <1811051389-1374093079-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1844730743-@b16.c5.bise6.blackberry> Because I live in Saint Lucia I completely about that aspect of things :-) Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: Nick Ashton-Hart Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:00:23 To: ; Roland Perry Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Nick Ashton-Hart Subject: Re: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness Even worse for those of us who have to be in Bali for the IGF, and then a scant few weeks later for the WTO Ministerial ;) On 17 Jul 2013, at 21:55, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 09:03:29 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Deirdre Williams writes >> it sounds as if the physical location of this IGF in Bali, and the current financial situation, taken together, will provide splendid encouragement for remote participation (RP), at least to those of us from the "other" side of the world > > I'm afraid to say (and I have several scars) that having a meeting in quite such a high profile tourist destination is the kiss of death to many potential participants from stakeholders such as government and large corporations. Perhaps 20 years ago those participants would work harder to justify such a trip, but we live in different times now. > > This doesn't mean it's bad place, or the people there don't deserve such a meeting being brought to their doorstep. But it gives many attendees a significant hurdle. > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Wed Jul 17 16:38:09 2013 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:38:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <192257F6-C404-47C1-A82E-CCABCEFA58A0@christopherwilkinson.eu> Indeed. Some of these locations are eccentric (in the mathematical sense) CW On 17 Jul 2013, at 14:06, Ginger Paque wrote: > Nick and all, > I understand and share your concern. As a strong proponent of e- and remote participation, I will reiterate to Chengetai the importance of excellent and timely tech and Internet training and support for remote presenters and participants. This is one important reason to note whether your panellists will present remotely (there is a field for it in the workshop form), so the organizers are aware of the approximate number of remote panellists, and can prepare for it. The RP prep work is not easy, and is one reason workshop details must be available quite early on. > > If you think about it, you will realise that the IGC exists online, not in any physical space. We have the experience and the motivation to take advantage of online participation for the IGF meeting as well. I do not know who/what/how RP will be managed for Bali, but I know it is a high priority for the IGF Secretariat. > > We can also be prepared for glitches: consider asking panellists to pre-record and send a backup intervention in case there are problems. It might save them in case of virtual jet lag, if they must present at 2 a.m. local time, and their alarm clock doesn't go off. A copy of a .ppt or speaking notes might allow someone else to step in if necessary (De Williams did this for me once in the Caribbean. I was supposed to present remotely, but had local Internet problems. Since the organizers had my .ppt, De gave my presentation on site, and did a great job). We have switched to Skype if WebEx has problems; we have read out interventions sent in by email or Skype when there is a problem. > > I think all of you know that onsite presentation takes a lot of preparation, time and energy. So does RP, sometimes--often even--not as much. I think we should put the time and effort into good RP when that is our best option, the same way we do when being on site is our best option. > > Please let me know if I can help in any way during this process. If I can, I am willing. > Good luck, > Ginger > > > On 17 July 2013 06:31, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I am doing this too, but I worry: past history is that the first day or two of the IGF the Internet can be less than reliable. If we have many remote presenters because of this unreasonable expectation of advance notice and they can't present, what will events be like? > > Still what can you do. > > On 17 Jul 2013, at 13:03, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> NO! Definitely not official--that is my own personal suggestion. For our workshop, I found that my preferred discussants could not always confirm they would be in Bali. So I asked them to confirm they would participate--and that if they could not be in Bali physically, that they would join us remotely. For me, this was a way to confirm my panel participants, even though they did not yet have funding to travel to Bali. Chengetai did confirm that this is a viable option and that remote presenters will have tech support. >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> On 17 July 2013 02:23, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >> Ginger is that an official proviso - as I don't remember it being there in the original request for proposals. Maybe I'm wrong? >> >> -C >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> with the proviso that they will present remotely if they cannot be in Bali. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 17 19:41:46 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:41:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: <1811051389-1374093079-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-copy_sent_folder-1551922868-@b16.c5.bise6.blackberry> References: <51e55094.e914c20a.42ac.7c4cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <285330b9-73c4-4f27-abba-d1091e23eb81@email.android.com> <0000013fec65faec-b9b4f59a-8300-4f6f-aa81-661e4f5d9795-000000@email.amazonses.com> <0000013fec892776-c76cf36e-cc79-423a-8fc0-35eaec4c6df6-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20067FAA-3060-40B5-A56D-D01D62AD8178@ccianet.org> <1811051389-1374093079-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-copy_sent_folder-1551922868-@b16.c5.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <1522931602-1374104504-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2112674510-@b16.c5.bise6.blackberry> I also see that I completely forgot the forgot. Sorry. Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 20:31:20 To: ; Nick Ashton-Hart; Roland Perry Reply-To: williams.deirdre at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness Because I live in Saint Lucia I completely about that aspect of things :-) Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: Nick Ashton-Hart Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:00:23 To: ; Roland Perry Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Nick Ashton-Hart Subject: Re: [governance] WG: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness Even worse for those of us who have to be in Bali for the IGF, and then a scant few weeks later for the WTO Ministerial ;) On 17 Jul 2013, at 21:55, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 09:03:29 on Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Deirdre Williams writes >> it sounds as if the physical location of this IGF in Bali, and the current financial situation, taken together, will provide splendid encouragement for remote participation (RP), at least to those of us from the "other" side of the world > > I'm afraid to say (and I have several scars) that having a meeting in quite such a high profile tourist destination is the kiss of death to many potential participants from stakeholders such as government and large corporations. Perhaps 20 years ago those participants would work harder to justify such a trip, but we live in different times now. > > This doesn't mean it's bad place, or the people there don't deserve such a meeting being brought to their doorstep. But it gives many attendees a significant hurdle. > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jul 18 04:45:28 2013 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:45:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: AW: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness In-Reply-To: References: <038b01ce822b$0603f3d0$120bdb70$@org> Message-ID: <027c01ce8393$2aab65b0$80023110$@hoferichter@freenet.de> Thank you very much Laura for the explanation. This makes it much clearer for me and I hope also for others (cc the IG mailing list). And I agree with you having the same people in different sessions at the same time is an issue, which caused a lot of conflicts in the past. Best Sandra Von: Laura VUILLEQUEZ [mailto:LVUILLEQUEZ at unog.ch] Im Auftrag von IGF Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Juli 2013 14:03 An: sandra at eurodig.org Betreff: Re: AW: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness Dear Sandra, Many thanks for getting back to us. The deadline is there to allow the Secretariat to draft the schedule. We need to have a complete list of panellists for all workshops so that we can allocate them slots without creating any panellist conflict (one panellists cannot attend two different events at the same time). We need now to finalize the draft in order to get things rolling, this is why we set this strict deadline. We do however understand that getting confirmation from panellists at this stage can be challenging, and we are aware that things may change. But after the 18 July, changes will be for informational purposes only. The workshop organiser cannot ask the Secretariat to reschedule their workshop based on these updates. The onus will be on the workshop organizer to find another workshop to swap slots. Thank you again for your interest in IGF and valued contribution to the success of the meeting. Best regards, IGF Secretariat From: To: "'IGF'" Cc: '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"' Date: 16/07/2013 15:47 Subject: AW: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness _____ Dear IGF Secretariat, I raised this issue already but like to draw your attention again. For some organisations or companies it is not possible to decide on such an early stage who will participate in a session in October. Among them are organisations like the European Commission or ETNO. I have been informed that they will participate in our workshop (no. 40), but can only decide on a later stage which person will be sent to Bali. I assume this is not only the case for our session, but applies also to other organisers. While I can understand the demand, to get things sorted out on an early stage, I consider this way of moving forward is not feasible. Kind regards Sandra Hoferichter Von: Sourakatou Ramanou BIAOU [ mailto:SBIAOU at unog.ch] Im Auftrag von IGF Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Juli 2013 15:29 Betreff: Final deadline and requirements for workshop proposal completeness Dear Workshop Proponent, Kindly note that the final deadline for editing your workshop proposal(s) is 18 July 2013. Once this date has passed, you will not be able to make changes to your proposal(s) anymore, including panellists registration and confirmation. Please also bear in mind that registering the name of an organization is not sufficient. Each panellist should be an individual. We thank you for your continued interest in IGF and valued contribution to IGF 2013. Best regards, IGF Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lucabelli at hotmail.it Thu Jul 18 05:07:42 2013 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:07:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: ,, Message-ID: Dear all, It is a great pleasure to announce you the creation of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, under the auspices of the IGF. The purpose of this Dynamic Coalition is to provide a discussion arena aimed at scrutinising the various nuances of the network-neutrality debate so as to ultimately contribute to the elaboration of best practices, policies and regulations. To this end, an annual report will be produced to provide an overview on network neutrality tendencies, policies and draft legislations. Should you be interested in joining the DC or providing some material to be published on the DC website, please send an email to contact at networkneutrality.info Should you be interested in subscribing to the mailing-list of the DC, please follow the instructions here: http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition Lastly, please find attached (and below) the Call for Papers pertaining the first Annual Report of the DC that will be dedicated to relation between Network Neutrality and Human Rights. Feel free to share the call through your networks and, obviously, to submit a position paper. Many thanks and kind regards, Luca Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University Background“Network neutrality” is an appealing and multifaceted expression which encompassesseveral areas and may give rise to misinterpretations. At its core, the notion of networkneutrality determines the extent to which Internet traffic management practices may beregarded as legitimate, insofar as they do not qualify as discriminatory practices and theyare consistent with the full enjoyment of human rights. Yet, throughout the last decade,this polysemous formula has acquired different meanings, invading the province oftelecommunications, content and security regulation.The network neutrality debate is gaining great political momentum. Indeed, manylegislators are currently scrutinizing the opportunity of elaborating and adoptinglegislation on network neutrality. While everyone agrees that end-users’ fundamentalrights have to be safeguarded, the question remains as to how this end could be achieved,and what are the consequences (if any) of network-management practices on such rights. CallThe Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, created under the auspices of the UnitedNations Internet Governance Forum, invites researchers and practitioners to submit aposition paper on the issue of net neutrality and human rights. Position papers shouldprovide relevant background information together with one or more propositions on howto preserve fundamental human rights (such as the right to privacy or freedom ofexpression) on the Internet of tomorrow.Suggested topics include, inter alia:Implementation of the network neutrality principle:• How to approach network neutrality? Regulation or co-regulation?• Is fair competition a sufficient safeguard for fundamental rights?• Can current examples of network-neutrality legislation be deemed as efficient?• Is there a difference between “open Internet” and “neutral Internet”?Impact of network neutrality on human rights:• Analysis of network neutrality case-law: Current violations of the network neutralityprinciple and their impact on human rights• How to reconcile anti-network neutrality arguments with the protection of humanrights?• >From gateways to gatekeepers: assessing the role of ISPs with regard to access toinformation.• Network neutrality and global access to the Internet: a “digital divide” issue• Digital democracy: the impact of network neutrality regulation on civic participation• Benefits and risks of Deep Packet Inspection as an Internet traffic managementtechniques NeutralityInternational trends and policy recommendations for the Internet of tomorrow Submission Guidelines:Submissions are due on September 15th, 2013. They should include the followingelements:- Title- Short abstract (250 words)- Position paper (between 3000 and 6000 words)- Author’s name, affiliation and short bibliographical noteSubmissions should be sent to contact at networkneutrality.info Authors will be notified within approximately two weeks from the deadline as to the statusof their contributions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: call for papers DC NN .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 52261 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2013-07-10 at 12.36.31 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 80970 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Thu Jul 18 11:04:50 2013 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:04:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: ,, Message-ID: <1374159890.84710.YahooMailNeo@web28905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Dear Luca, It's great to hear from you and about the initiative. I will look at it closer and will come to you if interested in joining. Keep it up! Arsene   ------------------------------------------------------ Arsene Tungali, *Executive Director, Rudi International email: rudi.intl at yahoo.fr Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rudiinternational  web: www.rudiinternational.wordpress.com *Agronomy Sciences, Goma University Blog: http://tungali.blogspot.com/ Tel.: +243993810967, 853181857 Facebook-Twitter: Arsene Tungali Skype: arsenetungali Demmocratic Republic of Congo ________________________________ De : Luca Belli À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Envoyé le : Jeudi 18 juillet 2013 12h07 Objet : [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality Dear all, It is a great pleasure to announce you the creation of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, under the auspices of the IGF. The purpose of this Dynamic Coalition is to provide a discussion arena aimed at scrutinising the various nuances of the network-neutrality debate so as to ultimately contribute to the elaboration of best practices, policies and regulations. To this end, an annual report will be produced to provide an overview on network neutrality tendencies, policies and draft legislations. Should you be interested in joining the DC or providing some material to be published on the DC website, please send an email to contact at networkneutrality.info Should you be interested in subscribing to the mailing-list of the DC, please follow the instructions here: http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition Lastly, please find attached (and below) the Call for Papers pertaining the first Annual Report of the DC that will be dedicated to relation between Network Neutrality and Human Rights. Feel free to share the call through your networks and, obviously, to submit a position paper. Many thanks and kind regards, Luca  Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit Public CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas Sorbonne University Background >“Network neutrality” is an appealing and multifaceted expression which encompasses >several areas and may give rise to misinterpretations. At its core, the notion of network >neutrality determines the extent to which Internet traffic management practices may be >regarded as legitimate, insofar as they do not qualify as discriminatory practices and they >are consistent with the full enjoyment of human rights. Yet, throughout the last decade, >this polysemous formula has acquired different meanings, invading the province of >telecommunications, content and security regulation. >The network neutrality debate is gaining great political momentum. Indeed, many >legislators are currently scrutinizing the opportunity of elaborating and adopting >legislation on network neutrality. While everyone agrees that end-users’ fundamental >rights have to be safeguarded, the question remains as to how this end could be achieved, >and what are the consequences (if any) of network-management practices on such rights. > >> >>Call >The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, created under the auspices of the United >Nations Internet Governance Forum, invites researchers and practitioners to submit a >position paper on the issue of net neutrality and human rights. Position papers should >provide relevant background information together with one or more propositions on how >to preserve fundamental human rights (such as the right to privacy or freedom of >expression) on the Internet of tomorrow. >Suggested topics include, inter alia: >Implementation of the network neutrality principle: >• How to approach network neutrality? Regulation or co-regulation? >• Is fair competition a sufficient safeguard for fundamental rights? >• Can current examples of network-neutrality legislation be deemed as efficient? >• Is there a difference between “open Internet” and “neutral Internet”? >Impact of network neutrality on human rights: >• Analysis of network neutrality case-law: Current violations of the network neutrality >principle and their impact on human rights >• How to reconcile anti-network neutrality arguments with the protection of human >rights? >• From gateways to gatekeepers: assessing the role of ISPs with regard to access to >information. >• Network neutrality and global access to the Internet: a “digital divide” issue >• Digital democracy: the impact of network neutrality regulation on civic participation >• Benefits and risks of Deep Packet Inspection as an Internet traffic management >techniques Neutrality >International trends and policy recommendations for the Internet of tomorrow > >> >>Submission Guidelines: >Submissions are due on September 15th, 2013. They should include the following >elements: >- Title >- Short abstract (250 words) >- Position paper (between 3000 and 6000 words) >- Author’s name, affiliation and short bibliographical note >Submissions should be sent to contact at networkneutrality.info       >Authors will be notified within approximately two weeks from the deadline as to the status >of their contributions. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2013-07-10 at 12.36.31 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 80970 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 13:47:22 2013 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:47:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] .pharmacy Message-ID: Should the trade association control it's domain? http://www.pharmalive.com/reader-poll-who-should-administer-pharmacy-domain-names/?cid=nl_pharma_pharmalot -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 14:15:04 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:15:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] video available - Frank La Rue at New America Message-ID: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/human_rights_surveillance Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance The Open Technology Institute and Global Partners Present: Frank La Rue, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression -- *Carolina Rossini* Project Director, Latin America Resource Center New America Foundation and http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bavouc at gmail.com Thu Jul 18 16:58:34 2013 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Clement Martial Aboudem Bavou) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 21:58:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Luca, I'm ready to join, I'm ready to participate. Regards. From my HTC ONE S Smartphone Le 2013-07-18 10:11, "Luca Belli" a écrit : > Dear all, > > > It is a great pleasure to announce you the creation of the Dynamic > Coalition on Network Neutrality, > under the auspices of the IGF. **** > > The purpose of this Dynamic Coalition is to provide a discussion arena > aimed at scrutinising the various nuances of the network-neutrality debate > so as to ultimately contribute to the elaboration of best practices, > policies and regulations. To this end, an annual report will be produced > to provide an overview on network neutrality tendencies, policies and draft > legislations.**** > > > Should you be interested in joining the DC or providing some material to > be published on the DC website , please > send an email to contact at networkneutrality.info**** > > Should you be interested in subscribing to the mailing-list of the DC, > please follow the instructions here: > http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition**** > > > Lastly, please find attached (and below) the Call for Papers pertaining > the first Annual Report of the DC that will be dedicated to relation > between Network Neutrality and Human Rights. **** > > > Feel free to share the call through your networks and, obviously, to > submit a position paper. > > > Many thanks and kind regards, > > > Luca > > *Luca Belli * > ***Doctorant en Droit Public* > *CERSA,**Université **Panthéon-Assas* > *Sorbonne University * > * > * > > > [image: Inline image 1] > > *Background* > > “Network neutrality” is an appealing and multifaceted expression which > encompasses > > several areas and may give rise to misinterpretations. At its core, the > notion of network > > neutrality determines the extent to which Internet traffic management > practices may be > > regarded as legitimate, insofar as they do not qualify as discriminatory > practices and they > > are consistent with the full enjoyment of human rights. Yet, throughout > the last decade, > > this polysemous formula has acquired different meanings, invading the > province of > > telecommunications, content and security regulation. > > The network neutrality debate is gaining great political momentum. Indeed, > many > > legislators are currently scrutinizing the opportunity of elaborating and > adopting > > legislation on network neutrality. While everyone agrees that end-users’ > fundamental > > rights have to be safeguarded, the question remains as to how this end > could be achieved, > > and what are the consequences (if any) of network-management practices on > such rights. > > * > * > *Call* > > The Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality, > created under the auspices of the United > > Nations Internet Governance Forum, > invites researchers and practitioners to submit a > > position paper on the issue of net neutrality and human rights. Position > papers should > > provide relevant background information together with one or more > propositions on how > > to preserve fundamental human rights (such as the right to privacy or > freedom of > > expression) on the Internet of tomorrow. > > Suggested topics include, inter alia: > > Implementation of the network neutrality principle: > > • How to approach network neutrality? Regulation or co-regulation? > > • Is fair competition a sufficient safeguard for fundamental rights? > > • Can current examples of network-neutrality legislation be deemed as > efficient? > > • Is there a difference between “open Internet” and “neutral Internet”? > > Impact of network neutrality on human rights: > > • Analysis of network neutrality case-law: Current violations of the > network neutrality > > principle and their impact on human rights > > • How to reconcile anti-network neutrality arguments with the protection > of human > > rights? > > • From gateways to gatekeepers: assessing the role of ISPs with regard to > access to > > information. > > • Network neutrality and global access to the Internet: a “digital divide” > issue > > • Digital democracy: the impact of network neutrality regulation on civic > participation > > • Benefits and risks of Deep Packet Inspection as an Internet traffic > management > > techniques Neutrality > > International trends and policy recommendations for the Internet of > tomorrow > > > *Submission Guidelines:* > > Submissions are due on September 15th, 2013. They should include the > following > > elements: > > - Title > > - Short abstract (250 words) > > - Position paper (between 3000 and 6000 words) > > - Author’s name, affiliation and short bibliographical note > > Submissions should be sent to contact at networkneutrality.info > > > Authors will be notified within approximately two weeks from the deadline > as to the status > > of their contributions. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen Shot 2013-07-10 at 12.36.31 PM.png Type: image/png Size: 80970 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Thu Jul 18 20:02:40 2013 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:02:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_Oficial_-_Cancilleria_de_Peru_-_Pro?= =?UTF-8?Q?puesta_peruana_de_rechazo_a_dominio_=E2=80=9C=2Eamazon=E2=80=9D?= =?UTF-8?Q?_en_internet_se_acepta_en_reuni=C3=B3n_de_Sud=C3=A1frica_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=8B?= References: <162B060A-044D-453A-B49B-AA4910C8A37F@alfa-redi.org> Message-ID: <07B83B82-D3AA-4527-AB80-59FF60B6D22B@alfa-redi.org> FYI Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: Erick Iriarte Ahon > Fecha: 18 de julio de 2013 18:39:31 GMT-05:00 > Para: LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN > Cc: "Foro Informático. de Derecho" > Asunto: Oficial - Cancilleria de Peru - Propuesta peruana de rechazo a dominio “.amazon” en internet se acepta en reunión de Sudáfrica ​ > > > Source: http://www.rree.gob.pe/Noticias/Paginas/NP-487-13.aspx > > > Propuesta peruana de rechazo a dominio “.amazon” en internet se acepta en reunión de Sudáfrica ​ > > N° 163 - 18/07/2013​ > > Nota de Prensa 163 - 13 > > Una “alerta temprana” presentada por el Perú y Brasil, que permitirá el rechazo de la solicitud de registro del dominio ".amazon", fue acogida durante la Reunión del Comité Asesor Gubernamental (GAC) del ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), la entidad encargada de asignar los nombres de dominio en internet, que se realiza en Durban, Sudáfrica. > > La firma Amazon.com.Inc. solicitó a la ICANN el registro del dominio “.amazon”., que le permitiría a la empresa norteamericana la explotación privada, y con fines exclusivamente comerciales, tal como figura en su solicitud de registro, de un dominio de Internet que se refiere a un patrimonio natural y público, perteneciente a los países y regiones amazónicas. > > El 13 de julio nuestro país dio lectura a la Declaración en la que resaltaba el apoyo de los países amazónicos a la solicitud presentada por Perú y Brasil y que busca proteger el dominio en internet para los países y comunidades amazónicas. Dicho documento recoge los aportes peruanos, pero a fin de lograr el apoyo de otros países se decidió hablar de "limitar el registro de nombres geográficos y ya no de prohibirlos absolutamente". > > Nuestro país consiguió por consenso que se establezca la objeción al registro de dominio “.amazon”, lo que ha sido incorporado el día de hoy en un “GAC Comuniqué” en Durban, Sudáfrica, asunto que constituirá la base política para apuntalar el rechazo del registro de dominio “.amazon” ante el ICANN Board (Consejo del ICANN). > > > > Lima, 18 de julio de 2013 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 19 05:43:31 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:43:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] .pharmacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 10:47:22 on Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Sylvia Caras writes >Should the trade association control it's domain? It's not theirs yet. >http://www.pharmalive.com/reader-poll-who-should-administer-pharmacy-domain-names/?cid=nl_pharma_pharmalot If they apply for it, and win, then of course they should. Aren't the criteria for that in the gTLD Guidebook? As for the lobbying against it, perhaps those folks should apply for .budget-pharmacy (or similar)? -- 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 10:50:04 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:50:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google letter regarding the NSA Message-ID: Folks, is there any relevant development regarding the request Google forwarded to the Department of Justice right after Snowden's disclosure? -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com Fri Jul 19 10:56:35 2013 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:56:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] Google letter regarding the NSA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I guess not, Diego. http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/18/tech-firms-letter-nsa-surveillance-transparency?CMP=twt_gu You saw this release from Microsoft, right? http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/07/16/responding-to-government-legal-demands-for-customer-data.aspx Abraços, Sérgio On Jul 19, 2013 7:50 AM, "Diego Rafael Canabarro" wrote: Folks, is there any relevant development regarding the request Google forwarded to the Department of Justice right after Snowden's disclosure? -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Jul 19 12:43:08 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 18:43:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [] WGEC questionnaire: doubt and suggestion References: <0CD39BF5-7AD4-4636-91B0-B2349EC83232@acm.org> Message-ID: <17C3C888-21BB-4DE6-8E57-AA79874F531D@ella.com> BTW The deadline for submitting responses is 15 August 2013. http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1zMI-GHo4Fv9pwAfmuTqFd-sd4zquvREfB4850NXhP7E/viewform?pli=1&hl=en http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/2013_WGEC_Questionnaire.pdf Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria > Subject: [bestbits] Re: WGEC questionnaire: doubt and suggestion > Date: 19 July 2013 09:09:38 GMT+02:00 > To: Best Bits > > Hi, > > While it was originally restricted, the restrictions have been removed and the current form is explicit about that. > > The new form includes the line: > > "Other relevant entities involved in Internet related public policy issues are welcome to provide their input by filling out the questionnaire." > > > 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 Fri Jul 19 21:25:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 06:55:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] OECD unveils global crackdown on tax arbitrage by multinationals ("such as Google") Message-ID: <086a01ce84e8$1a49db10$4edd9130$@gmail.com> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/19/business/oecd-tax-arbitrage-plan-multinati onals/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 20 15:21:23 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:21:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] video available - Frank La Rue at New America In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> Carolina Rossini wrote: > http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/human_rights_surveillance > > Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance > The Open Technology Institute and Global Partners Present: Frank La > Rue, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression Thank you so much for sharing this - much good stuff in there. Although I was a bit disappointed by Frank La Rue not making any direct strong statements specifically on the issue of extraterritorial surveillance. By the way, the way in which you embedded the video on the newamerica.net side only gives me a black rectangle. Visiting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC9daaaaznI directly works better for me. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jul 20 15:31:51 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:31:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU sector membership Message-ID: <20130720213151.44611b1b@quill> IIRC sometime last year, Touré somehow offered civil society entities the opportunity to become ITU sector members free of charge, or something like that - but I don't remember the specifics. Can someone point me to relevant information? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 15:40:14 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:40:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] video available - Frank La Rue at New America In-Reply-To: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> References: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> Message-ID: Thank you to point that. I will let the tech folks know. Btw, regarding surveillance of the non-US persons, are you guys planning to send comments under this request: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001 C On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Carolina Rossini wrote: > > > http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/human_rights_surveillance > > > > Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance > > The Open Technology Institute and Global Partners Present: Frank La > > Rue, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression > > Thank you so much for sharing this - much good stuff in there. Although > I was a bit disappointed by Frank La Rue not making any direct strong > statements specifically on the issue of extraterritorial surveillance. > > By the way, the way in which you embedded the video on the > newamerica.net side only gives me a black rectangle. Visiting > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC9daaaaznI directly works better for me. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 15:47:08 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 15:47:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU sector membership Message-ID: <9ayt8orobkwrtphln25fo2wf.1374349628653@email.android.com> He offered that in a meeting with civil society at the Dubai treaty conference,  but I don't know if that was ever written. .. -------- Original message -------- From: Norbert Bollow Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] ITU sector membership IIRC sometime last year, Touré somehow offered civil society entities the opportunity to become ITU sector members free of charge, or something like that - but I don't remember the specifics. Can someone point me to relevant information? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jul 20 16:17:51 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:17:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU sector membership In-Reply-To: <9ayt8orobkwrtphln25fo2wf.1374349628653@email.android.com> References: <9ayt8orobkwrtphln25fo2wf.1374349628653@email.android.com> Message-ID: Toure put it in writing in an information note regarding civil society submissions issued that was issued at the end of WCIT. Of course the information note required a TIES account to access, but it is available on WCITLeaks here: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005!!MSW-E.pdf Here's the relevant text: "I would also take the opportunity to remind you that all civil society organizations, who are international in nature and who are working in the area of ICTs are welcome to join the ITU and apply for exemption of fees. I believe we will all benefit from a greater civil society engagement at ITU and in line with this I recently invited the Internation al Trade Union Movement to join." AFAIK the International Trade Union Movement declined to join. I think Toure's also mentioned this in public speeches that can be found here: http://www.itu.int/en/osg/speeches/Pages/default.aspx I hope this is helpful. Best, Deborah On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com < genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: > He offered that in a meeting with civil society at the Dubai treaty > conference, but I don't know if that was ever written. .. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Norbert Bollow > Date: > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] ITU sector membership > > > IIRC sometime last year, Touré somehow offered civil society entities > the opportunity to become ITU sector members free of charge, or > something like that - but I don't remember the specifics. > > Can someone point me to relevant information? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 20 18:08:49 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 06:08:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] video available - Frank La Rue at New America In-Reply-To: References: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> Message-ID: On Jul 21, 2013, at 3:40 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Thank you to point that. I will let the tech folks know. > > Btw, regarding surveillance of the non-US persons, are you guys planning to send comments under this request: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001 > Sala: This is a fantastic idea and we really should consider sending our views. > C > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> > http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/human_rights_surveillance >> > >> > Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance >> > The Open Technology Institute and Global Partners Present: Frank La >> > Rue, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression >> >> Thank you so much for sharing this - much good stuff in there. Although >> I was a bit disappointed by Frank La Rue not making any direct strong >> statements specifically on the issue of extraterritorial surveillance. >> >> By the way, the way in which you embedded the video on the >> newamerica.net side only gives me a black rectangle. Visiting >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC9daaaaznI directly works better for me. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jul 20 22:40:19 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:40:19 +0800 Subject: [governance] ITU sector membership In-Reply-To: <20130720213151.44611b1b@quill> References: <20130720213151.44611b1b@quill> Message-ID: On 21/07/2013, at 3:31 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > IIRC sometime last year, Touré somehow offered civil society entities > the opportunity to become ITU sector members free of charge, or > something like that - but I don't remember the specifics. > > Can someone point me to relevant information? Consumers International recently became a sector member of ITU-T and ITU-D with a waiver of fees, and I understand that Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore has also recently joined. So yes, it is possible. You need to write to the Director, Corporate Governance and Membership Division explaining your qualifications to join and requesting a waiver of fees. The process for approval is a lengthy one, expect to wait a few months. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jul 21 09:42:32 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 21:42:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] "Shared decision-making procedures" in IG: examples from the ITU Global Youth Summit References: <1193915.Sebgarsh.AS-106917.2013.7.12.58385.01.pressoffice@itu.int> Message-ID: <9C688ABB-DE43-4621-A924-E0ACD8CAFB3B@ciroap.org> We tend to be a bit sanctimonious about the shortcomings of the ITU, but the IGF could take a leaf out of its book in relation to some of the procedural innovations of its non-high-level meetings. I've previously harped on the lost opportunity of "speed dialogues" that were promised for Rio, but that extended only to local participants. This has progressed into the use of innovative tools for remote participants to engage also, in this case for the upcoming Global Youth Summit: BYND 2015. See below for an overview of these. Why can't the IGF muster the imagination to try anything like this? Begin forwarded message: > From: "ITU Press Office" > Subject: Global Youth Summit: BYND 2015 > Date: 12 July 1913 9:13:05 PM GMT+07:00 > To: "Mr Jeremy Malcolm" > > Communiqué > > Global Youth Summit: BYND 2015 - > Crowdsourcing the Summit outcomes - initial tools announced > > Geneva, 11 July, 2013 - The BYND2015 Global Youth Summit (http://www.itu.int/en/bynd2015/Pages/default.aspx) will mobilize youth to join forces and create solutions for social good, enabled through widespread access to information and communication technologies (ICTs). Young people are pioneering the use of new technologies, and driving trends in what is a dynamic and major growth industry. The good news is they are using ICTs, the challenge is to inspire use of ICTs in constructive and empowering ways. The BYND2015 Summit will bring young people together - online and offline - who are helping their world through technology, to inspire and challenge one another, and mobilize others to do the same. > > A key attraction to the BYND2015 Summit is the innovative platform it provides for youth to speak to world leaders about their priorities for the ICT sector. A major outcome of the event will be developed around a short policy statement which captures the key issues and recommendations as identified by a worldwide community of young people. To help source these from a representative and diverse group, the summit will make use of several innovative crowd management and analytical tools which go live in beta version today. > > ITU is working with Google, Crowdicity and Ripple to provide a seamless user experience for participants engaging with the BYND2015 Summit tools in a process spanning between 10 July and the September event. Overall community platform will happen through a Google+ community (https://plus.google.com/communities/101860858149749340788) serving as the online location for attendees to connect and to create and share content in the run up to BYND2015 in September. > > Specific challenges on the themes of the Summit will be explored on a Crowdicity platform http://itu.crowdicity.com/), which facilitates advanced feedback which sees users polled on and critiquing others' ideas through a series of phases until just before the event. To help measure the online conversation and ensure a truly global perspective across multiple platforms, Ripple (http://www.rippleplatform.com/) will provide unique analytics and metrics on the key issues being discussed and top trending discussions across the entire web. > > BYND2015 Summit participants will thus be provided with live updates as well as real time analytics on the nature of the debate in the run-up, and will have the opportunity to drive a truly global discussion around the issues. This will be used as input to frame dialogue and workshops onsite, where additional brainstorming and polling will see a final set of priorities crowd-sourced and decided upon, and ultimately delivered to the United Nations General Assembly by the President of Costa Rica - Laura Chinchilla - in late September. > > For information see ITU blog BYND2015 - Tapping into the Crowd to Source Solutions at: > http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/bynd2015-tapping-into-the-crowd-to-source-solutions/ > > For more information, please visit www.itu.int/en/bynd2015 > > > > > -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Jul 21 13:31:52 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 19:31:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ITU sector membership In-Reply-To: References: <20130720213151.44611b1b@quill> Message-ID: <30143277.10486.1374427913037.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e07> Dear Norbert and Jeremy dear Members of the list Since the very beginning of the WSIS process I asked the ITU to open its memberhip to the CS in respect to the multistakeholder principe which is central to the WSIS process and constituency. I didn't get a sufficient support from the CS plenary for my proposal which was in fact a requirement for me ! Therefore CS was waiting for some time (years) until the SG of the ITU accepted the principle of CS being a member of its (UN) agency and submitted the question to the Plenipotentiary Conference in Antalya in 2006 (PP'06), which in turn forwarded it to the ITU Council, whose proposals were to be presented to PP'10 (Guadalajara), and so on ... The major final result was that CS orgs were considered as candidate members under diverse criteria and limitations : they were offered (...) an Associate Member status once the ITU has examined and approved their ability ... and once they had paid a fee ranging from from more than one thousand SFr (CS orgs from DCs) to more than four thousand SFr fro the other orgs. Thus and de facto grass-root orgs didn't deserve even such a "restricted" membership. In fact I'm actually surprised for being told through this thread of our list that from now on the ITU is -at last !- open to CS orgs, and what's more : with a waiver on their fees ! Very good news, aren't they ? This raises for me the question : Why didn't the SG of the ITU announce this happy news solemnly during the last WSIS Forum, because this ought to be the best/right place ? I still have in mind the opinion of the Director of the ITU BDT meeting a Swiss NGO delegation during the Geneva Summit (December 2003) who asked him why the ITU is still closed for CS orgs. His answer can be found in "Annuaire suisse de politique de developpement 2003" on page 120. Roughly translated it reads : "ITU is open for working with NGOs. Simply, they don't need to be formal Sector members for that. What we do refuse is a politisation (sic) of the ITU. We are doing development, no politics : there are other forums for discussing human rights. I am in favor of telecoms contributing to peace and to the respect of human rights, but I don't want to enter in political debates upon these questions". Well, why does this souvenir let me sceptical ? Simply because the Director of ITU BDT in 2003 is the current SG of the ITU. Best Jean-Lous Fullsack CESIR Unesco Chair, University of Strabourg > Message du 21/07/13 04:40 > De : "Jeremy Malcolm" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Norbert Bollow" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] ITU sector membership > > On 21/07/2013, at 3:31 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > IIRC sometime last year, Touré somehow offered civil society entities > > the opportunity to become ITU sector members free of charge, or > > something like that - but I don't remember the specifics. > > > > Can someone point me to relevant information? > > > Consumers International recently became a sector member of ITU-T and ITU-D with a waiver of fees, and I understand that Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore has also recently joined. So yes, it is possible. You need to write to the Director, Corporate Governance and Membership Division explaining your qualifications to join and requesting a waiver of fees. The process for approval is a lengthy one, expect to wait a few months. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Jul 21 14:09:31 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:09:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [] WGEC questionnaire: doubt and suggestion References: <0CD39BF5-7AD4-4636-91B0-B2349EC83232@acm.org> Message-ID: <8ABD22D2-888D-4A06-99D6-81B38CEE8FA6@acm.org> BTW The deadline for submitting responses is 15 August 2013. http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1zMI-GHo4Fv9pwAfmuTqFd-sd4zquvREfB4850NXhP7E/viewform?pli=1&hl=en http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/2013_WGEC_Questionnaire.pdf Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria > Subject: [bestbits] Re: WGEC questionnaire: doubt and suggestion > Date: 19 July 2013 09:09:38 GMT+02:00 > To: Best Bits > > Hi, > > While it was originally restricted, the restrictions have been removed and the current form is explicit about that. > > The new form includes the line: > > "Other relevant entities involved in Internet related public policy issues are welcome to provide their input by filling out the questionnaire." > > > 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 Sun Jul 21 14:13:17 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:43:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Shared decision-making procedures" in IG: examples from the ITU Global Youth Summit In-Reply-To: <9C688ABB-DE43-4621-A924-E0ACD8CAFB3B@ciroap.org> References: <1193915.Sebgarsh.AS-106917.2013.7.12.58385.01.pressoffice@itu.int> <9C688ABB-DE43-4621-A924-E0ACD8CAFB3B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <140026f66ac.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Nanog and the rest of the network operations community calls these lightning talks and i agree they are a very useful way to kickstart discussions and generate ideas if not always to achieve consensus in the short time available for such a dialog. It would be great to see these introduced. And i am very glad that remote collaboration and social tools are being deployed on this scale. Thanks for sharing --srs (htc one x) On 21 July 2013 7:12:32 PM Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > We tend to be a bit sanctimonious about the shortcomings of the ITU, but > the IGF could take a leaf out of its book in relation to some of the > procedural innovations of its non-high-level meetings. I've previously > harped on the lost opportunity of "speed dialogues" that were promised for > Rio, but that extended only to local participants. This has progressed > into the use of innovative tools for remote participants to engage also, in > this case for the upcoming Global Youth Summit: BYND 2015. See below for > an overview of these. Why can't the IGF muster the imagination to try > anything like this? > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: "ITU Press Office" > > Subject: Global Youth Summit: BYND 2015 > > Date: 12 July 1913 9:13:05 PM GMT+07:00 > > To: "Mr Jeremy Malcolm" > > Communiqué > > Global Youth Summit: BYND 2015 - > > Crowdsourcing the Summit outcomes - initial tools announced > > Geneva, 11 July, 2013 - The BYND2015 Global Youth Summit > (http://www.itu.int/en/bynd2015/Pages/default.aspx) will mobilize youth to > join forces and create solutions for social good, enabled through > widespread access to information and communication technologies (ICTs). > Young people are pioneering the use of new technologies, and driving trends > in what is a dynamic and major growth industry. The good news is they are > using ICTs, the challenge is to inspire use of ICTs in constructive and > empowering ways. The BYND2015 Summit will bring young people together - > online and offline - who are helping their world through technology, to > inspire and challenge one another, and mobilize others to do the same. > > A key attraction to the BYND2015 Summit is the innovative platform it > provides for youth to speak to world leaders about their priorities for the > ICT sector. A major outcome of the event will be developed around a short > policy statement which captures the key issues and recommendations as > identified by a worldwide community of young people. To help source these > from a representative and diverse group, the summit will make use of > several innovative crowd management and analytical tools which go live in > beta version today. > > ITU is working with Google, Crowdicity and Ripple to provide a seamless > user experience for participants engaging with the BYND2015 Summit tools in > a process spanning between 10 July and the September event. Overall > community platform will happen through a Google+ community > (https://plus.google.com/communities/101860858149749340788) serving as the > online location for attendees to connect and to create and share content in > the run up to BYND2015 in September. > > Specific challenges on the themes of the Summit will be explored on a > Crowdicity platform http://itu.crowdicity.com/), which facilitates advanced > feedback which sees users polled on and critiquing others' ideas through a > series of phases until just before the event. To help measure the online > conversation and ensure a truly global perspective across multiple > platforms, Ripple (http://www.rippleplatform.com/) will provide unique > analytics and metrics on the key issues being discussed and top trending > discussions across the entire web. > > BYND2015 Summit participants will thus be provided with live updates as > well as real time analytics on the nature of the debate in the run-up, and > will have the opportunity to drive a truly global discussion around the > issues. This will be used as input to frame dialogue and workshops onsite, > where additional brainstorming and polling will see a final set of > priorities crowd-sourced and decided upon, and ultimately delivered to the > United Nations General Assembly by the President of Costa Rica - Laura > Chinchilla - in late September. > > For information see ITU blog BYND2015 - Tapping into the Crowd to Source > Solutions at: > > > http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/bynd2015-tapping-into-the-crowd-to-source-solutions/ > > For more information, please visit www.itu.int/en/bynd2015 > > > > > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Sun Jul 21 23:23:33 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 23:23:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_Oficial_-_Cancilleria_de_Peru_-?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Propuesta_peruana_de_rechazo_a_dominio_=E2=80=9C=2Eamazon?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9D_en_internet_se_acepta_en_reuni=C3=B3n_de_Sud=C3=A1fri?= =?UTF-8?Q?ca_=E2=80=8B?= In-Reply-To: <07B83B82-D3AA-4527-AB80-59FF60B6D22B@alfa-redi.org> References: <162B060A-044D-453A-B49B-AA4910C8A37F@alfa-redi.org> <07B83B82-D3AA-4527-AB80-59FF60B6D22B@alfa-redi.org> Message-ID: <20130721232333.29391940827wmvn9@www.ciencitec.com> ¿Se estan preocupando en que peru.com dominio de nuestro país, no esté en manos privadas?. Siempre miramos fuera nunca en nuestro pais...¿Hasta cuando?, por lo menos por Fiestas Patrias, deberian demostrar amor al Perú y no simple figuretismo. ¡Basta ya!. Atentamente José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Erick Iriarte Ahon escribió: > FYI > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > >> De: Erick Iriarte Ahon >> Fecha: 18 de julio de 2013 18:39:31 GMT-05:00 >> Para: LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN >> Cc: "Foro Informático. de Derecho" >> Asunto: Oficial - Cancilleria de Peru - Propuesta peruana de >> rechazo a dominio “.amazon” en internet se acepta en reunión de >> Sudáfrica ​ >> >> >> Source: http://www.rree.gob.pe/Noticias/Paginas/NP-487-13.aspx >> >> >> Propuesta peruana de rechazo a dominio “.amazon” en internet se >> acepta en reunión de Sudáfrica ​ >> >> N° 163 - 18/07/2013​ >> >> Nota de Prensa 163 - 13 >> >> Una “alerta temprana” presentada por el Perú y Brasil, que >> permitirá el rechazo de la solicitud de registro del dominio >> ".amazon", fue acogida durante la Reunión del Comité Asesor >> Gubernamental (GAC) del ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned >> Names and Numbers), la entidad encargada de asignar los nombres de >> dominio en internet, que se realiza en Durban, Sudáfrica. >> >> La firma Amazon.com.Inc. solicitó a la ICANN el registro del >> dominio “.amazon”., que le permitiría a la empresa norteamericana >> la explotación privada, y con fines exclusivamente comerciales, tal >> como figura en su solicitud de registro, de un dominio de Internet >> que se refiere a un patrimonio natural y público, perteneciente a >> los países y regiones amazónicas. >> >> El 13 de julio nuestro país dio lectura a la Declaración en la que >> resaltaba el apoyo de los países amazónicos a la solicitud >> presentada por Perú y Brasil y que busca proteger el dominio en >> internet para los países y comunidades amazónicas. Dicho documento >> recoge los aportes peruanos, pero a fin de lograr el apoyo de otros >> países se decidió hablar de "limitar el registro de nombres >> geográficos y ya no de prohibirlos absolutamente". >> >> Nuestro país consiguió por consenso que se establezca la objeción >> al registro de dominio “.amazon”, lo que ha sido incorporado el día >> de hoy en un “GAC Comuniqué” en Durban, Sudáfrica, asunto que >> constituirá la base política para apuntalar el rechazo del registro >> de dominio “.amazon” ante el ICANN Board (Consejo del ICANN). >> >> >> >> Lima, 18 de julio de 2013 > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Elvana.THACI at coe.int Mon Jul 22 04:39:07 2013 From: Elvana.THACI at coe.int (THACI Elvana) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:39:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Council of Europe conference 'Transparency to protect Internet freedom: a shared commitment' 24-25 September Message-ID: <2BC8C1F8EE620E4DBF566BCF5F804CE338B02D21@V-Linguistix02.key.coe.int> Hello to everyone, I am pleased to inform list members that the Council of Europe is organising a multi-stakeholder dialogue on “Transparency to protect Internet freedom: a shared commitment” at its headquarters in Strasbourg, France on 24-25 September 2013. Conference information and pre-registration form are available on the conference website at http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/TransparencyConf2013/default_en.asp Apologies for any cross postings. Best regards, Elvana ~   Elvana Thaçi Administrator Internet Governance Unit Information Society and Action Against Crime Directorate DG I - Human Rights and Rule of Law Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex Tel.  + 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98 Fax. + 33 (0) 3 88 41 27 05 E-mail: elvana.thaci at coe.int Internet:http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 22 09:38:20 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:38:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU sector membership In-Reply-To: References: <9ayt8orobkwrtphln25fo2wf.1374349628653@email.android.com> Message-ID: <20130722153820.2db948b2@quill> Deborah and Gene and Jeremy Thanks a lot, the information that you have shared is very helpful. It appears that it is necessary to remind ITU staff of that interpretation of “international organization” which includes rather than excludes civil society organizations that are international in nature. Greetings, Norbert Am Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:17:51 -0400 schrieb Deborah Brown : > Toure put it in writing in an information note regarding civil society > submissions issued that was issued at the end of WCIT. > > Of course the information note required a TIES account to access, but > it is available on WCITLeaks here: > > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-INF-0005!!MSW-E.pdf > > Here's the relevant text: > "I would also take the opportunity to remind you that all civil > society organizations, who are international in nature and who are > working in the area of ICTs are welcome to join the ITU and apply for > exemption of fees. I believe we will all benefit from a greater civil > society engagement at ITU and in line with this I recently invited > the Internation al Trade Union Movement to join." > > AFAIK the International Trade Union Movement declined to join. > > I think Toure's also mentioned this in public speeches that can be > found here: http://www.itu.int/en/osg/speeches/Pages/default.aspx > > I hope this is helpful. > > Best, > Deborah > > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com < > genekimmelman at gmail.com> wrote: > > > He offered that in a meeting with civil society at the Dubai treaty > > conference, but I don't know if that was ever written. .. > > > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Norbert Bollow > > Date: > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: [governance] ITU sector membership > > > > > > IIRC sometime last year, Touré somehow offered civil society > > entities the opportunity to become ITU sector members free of > > charge, or something like that - but I don't remember the specifics. > > > > Can someone point me to relevant information? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the > > person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you > > accept > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu Mon Jul 22 07:29:51 2013 From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu (Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:29:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] GIPO / call for expressions of interest / feasibility study for the Global Internet Policy Observatory Message-ID: <20130722135621.5F851140509@beta.bollow.ch> [ Apologies if you receive this message more than once. Please feel free to distribute among your contacts ] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/global-internet-policy-observatory-call-expressions-interest Global Internet Policy Observatory - call for expressions of interest for a feasibility study In the context of the Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO) initiative, the European Commission will launch soon a call for tenders for a service contract of a maximum value of EUR 50,000. The purpose of this call for tenders is to develop a feasibility study which will provide: * an assessment of the technological requirements and available tools, to develop an online platform that would automatically collect and analyse information on Internet-related policy-making processes, as well as * a set of recommendations on the best "internal governance framework" for such platform in order to ensure the maximum levels of transparency, accountability, independence and inclusivity. In addition, the successful contractor will be expected to provide: * an online website, accessible to the Commission's services and to any other party the Commission might wish to grant access to, which will be used by the Contractor to set-up "live" demonstration versions of a limited number of technological tools analysed. The feasibility study is expected to last for a maximum duration of 4 months. Interested economic operators can express their interest to participate in the call for tender until 2 September 2013, in writing, by sending an e-mail to: * CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu and Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu. For clarity, the contracting authority will distribute the text of the call for tenders after 2 September 2013 and only to the economic operators which will have expressed their interest (as above) and to other economic operators as it deems appropriate, pursuant to the above-mentioned Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation. For further information, please refer to http://ec.europa.eu/contracts_grants/index_en.htm. Processing your reply to the ex-ante advertisement will involve the recording and processing of personal data (such as your name and address). Such data will be processed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data. Unless indicated otherwise, any personal data requested are required to register your interest to participate in the call for tender and will be processed solely for that purpose by the Data Controller. You are entitled to obtain access to your personal data on request and to rectify any such data that is inaccurate or incomplete. If you have any queries concerning the processing of your personal data, you may address them to the Data Controller. You have the right of recourse at any time to the European Data Protection Supervisor for matters relating to the processing of your personal data. For the purpose of this ex-ante advertisement, the Data Controller shall be the Head of the Unit in charge of this call for tender: Eddy Hartog, DG CONNECT, Unit D1 Any queries concerning the processing of personal data of the Candidate can be addressed by e-mail to the following contact person: CNECT-DATA-PROTECTION-COORDINATOR at ec.europa.eu by indicating the reference of the ex-ante advertisement. This publication is made pursuant to Article 124.1 (b) of the Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation that provides for an ex ante publication on the Institutions' websites of contracts with a value up to 60.000 EUR. Only the candidates invited by the contracting authority to participate in the procedure for awarding this low value contract will be admissible. Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jul 22 11:24:07 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:24:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google letter regarding the NSA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: there is a transparency letter this companies have published together with civil society orgs recently https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/cdt-brings-together-major-internet-companies-advocates-demand-more-transparency-around- Carol On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Sérgio Alves Jr. < sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com> wrote: > I guess not, Diego. > > > http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/18/tech-firms-letter-nsa-surveillance-transparency?CMP=twt_gu > > You saw this release from Microsoft, right? > > > http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/07/16/responding-to-government-legal-demands-for-customer-data.aspx > > Abraços, > Sérgio > On Jul 19, 2013 7:50 AM, "Diego Rafael Canabarro" < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks, > > is there any relevant development regarding the request Google forwarded > to the Department of Justice > right > after Snowden's disclosure? > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Mon Jul 22 12:11:04 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:11:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google letter regarding the NSA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, Carol. But I was referring to a formal response from the US Govt. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > there is a transparency letter this companies have published together with > civil society orgs recently > > > https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/cdt-brings-together-major-internet-companies-advocates-demand-more-transparency-around- > > Carol > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Sérgio Alves Jr. < > sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I guess not, Diego. >> >> >> http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/18/tech-firms-letter-nsa-surveillance-transparency?CMP=twt_gu >> >> You saw this release from Microsoft, right? >> >> >> http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/07/16/responding-to-government-legal-demands-for-customer-data.aspx >> >> Abraços, >> Sérgio >> On Jul 19, 2013 7:50 AM, "Diego Rafael Canabarro" < >> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> is there any relevant development regarding the request Google forwarded >> to the Department of Justice >> right >> after Snowden's disclosure? >> >> >> -- >> Diego R. Canabarro >> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 >> >> -- >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br >> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu >> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com >> Skype: diegocanabarro >> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) >> -- >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jul 22 16:49:51 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 06:49:51 +1000 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this Message-ID: Interesting article on open source futures in response to PRISM et al If we're at a point where no piece of commercial hardware or software can be trusted, then the only reasonable option is to rely on large communities of like-minded people to develop, extend, and inspect freely available code on a continuous basis. Essentially, we may need to open source everything.” http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/the-coming-push-open-source-everything-223011?source=IFWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2013-07-22 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 22 17:03:23 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:03:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] video available - Frank La Rue at New America In-Reply-To: References: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> Message-ID: <20130722230323.58311e23@quill> Sala wrote: > On Jul 21, 2013, at 3:40 AM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > > Btw, regarding surveillance of the non-US persons, are you guys > > planning to send comments under this request: > > http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001 > > > Sala: This is a fantastic idea and we really should consider sending > our views. I agree. Here's a first draft for what might become an IGC statement on this, if we can reach consensus: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/intsurveillance (If the IGC fails to reach consensus, I'll find another way to comment along those lines.) Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jul 22 17:10:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:10:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] {DMP} international surveillance (was Re: video available - Frank La Rue at New America) In-Reply-To: <20130722230323.58311e23@quill> References: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> <20130722230323.58311e23@quill> Message-ID: <20130722231048.321dda6d@quill> Apologies for replying to myself - I thought that it's important here to update the subject line. The "{DMP}" makrer is meant to stand for "decision making process". Greetings, Norbert Am Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:03:23 +0200 schrieb Norbert Bollow : > Sala wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 2013, at 3:40 AM, Carolina Rossini > > wrote: > > > > > Btw, regarding surveillance of the non-US persons, are you guys > > > planning to send comments under this request: > > > http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001 > > > > > Sala: This is a fantastic idea and we really should consider sending > > our views. > > I agree. > > Here's a first draft for what might become an IGC statement on this, > if we can reach consensus: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/intsurveillance > > (If the IGC fails to reach consensus, I'll find another way to comment > along those lines.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Mon Jul 22 20:44:38 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 20:44:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Blind Community Fights for a More Accessible Web Message-ID: <51EDD1F6.8030806@catherine-roy.net> Hello all, In an effort to create more awareness and discourse on tis list regarding accessibility issues for people with disabilities with ICTs, I will occasionally be sending out links to articles or resources on this subject. I hope members will take an interest and think about how they can further integrate this important dimension of the digital divide into their work. The following article is from mashable.com and while it speaks to issues that people with visually impairments face on the Web, I would add that other types of disabilities (auditory, mobility, cognitive, learning) all face challenges in this regard. It is always surprising to me that in ths day and age, all this still needs saying. I am always available for questions or to point to resources, whether on list or off. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 22 21:08:00 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 06:38:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blind Community Fights for a More Accessible Web Message-ID: Thanks for sharing these. Please connect with Arun Mehta (skid.org.in and bapsi.org) if you haven't already.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Catherine Roy Date: 07/23/2013 6:14 AM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Blind Community Fights for a More Accessible Web Hello all, In an effort to create more awareness and discourse on tis list regarding accessibility issues for people with disabilities with ICTs, I will occasionally be sending out links to articles or resources on this subject. I hope members will take an interest and think about how they can further integrate this important dimension of the digital divide into their work. The following article is from mashable.com and while it speaks to issues that people with visually impairments face on the Web, I would add that other types of disabilities (auditory, mobility, cognitive, learning) all face challenges in this regard. It is always surprising to me that in ths day and age, all this still needs saying. I am always available for questions or to point to resources, whether on list or off. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Mon Jul 22 23:01:34 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:01:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Big_News_in_Human_Rights=3A_New_Fun?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ding_and_Enhanced_Tools!_=AB_Benetech?= Message-ID: <51EDF20E.7090000@catherine-roy.net> [Apologies for cross-postings] Hi all, Thought this might be of interest to this group. Non-profit Benetech announced today new funding and new technical developments for their Human Rights Program through which it provides tools for human rights monitoring, namely, its Mobile Martus project. "The Mobile Martus prototype allows users to send crucial data from the field—text, photographs, audio and video—to the Martus network of secure servers. The data is automatically encrypted on the mobile phone, and when being sent to the server, so it is protected in case the phone is lost, stolen or confiscated. The user—or someone they designate—can later retrieve their data, and can search, analyze and report on the information, using the Martus client software." I am not affiliated with this organization but I am aware of the work they do in the disability sphere, most notably their Bookshare[1] initiative, "the world’s largest online library for individuals with print disabilities". Best regards, Catherine [1] https://www.bookshare.org/ -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 23 00:35:28 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:05:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <022301ce875e$18f6b4e0$4ae41ea0$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Ian… It seems to me to be an interesting and reasonable approach and even something that CS could look to include in it's PRISM/surveillance policy response framework… I'm wondering what the downsides might be? M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this Interesting article on open source futures in response to PRISM et al If we're at a point where no piece of commercial hardware or software can be trusted, then the only reasonable option is to rely on large communities of like-minded people to develop, extend, and inspect freely available code on a continuous basis. Essentially, we may need to open source everything.” http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/the-coming-push-open-source-everything-223011?source=IFWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2013-07-22 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jul 23 01:25:04 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:25:04 +1000 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this In-Reply-To: <022301ce875e$18f6b4e0$4ae41ea0$@gmail.com> References: <022301ce875e$18f6b4e0$4ae41ea0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don’t really know the downsides but I thought the article was interesting. We have a long way to go to get fully open source hardware, chips etc to go with reasonably good software OS platforms .But it was interesting that the article saw this as a future possibility for corporations. And as friends have pointed out to me, open source is not invulnerable. But I do think there are possibilities here that might be useful and this could become a significant trend if faith in major vendors is not restored. Ian Peter From: michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this Thanks for this Ian… It seems to me to be an interesting and reasonable approach and even something that CS could look to include in it's PRISM/surveillance policy response framework… I'm wondering what the downsides might be? M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this Interesting article on open source futures in response to PRISM et al If we're at a point where no piece of commercial hardware or software can be trusted, then the only reasonable option is to rely on large communities of like-minded people to develop, extend, and inspect freely available code on a continuous basis. Essentially, we may need to open source everything.” http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/the-coming-push-open-source-everything-223011?source=IFWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2013-07-22 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 23 03:46:03 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:46:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this In-Reply-To: <022301ce875e$18f6b4e0$4ae41ea0$@gmail.com> References: <022301ce875e$18f6b4e0$4ae41ea0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130723094603.4da403b4@quill> Hmm.. when the concern is about the possibility of backdoors in the chips themselves, I wonder whether it is possible to reliably compare a chip with what it should be like according to its source code. What kind of equipment is needed for doing that? An electron microscope? Greetings, Norbert Am Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:05:28 +0530 schrieb "michael gurstein" : > Thanks for this Ian… It seems to me to be an interesting and > reasonable approach and even something that CS could look to include > in it's PRISM/surveillance policy response framework… > > > > I'm wondering what the downsides might be? > > > > M > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of > this > > > > Interesting article on open source futures in response to PRISM et al > > > > > > If we're at a point where no piece of commercial hardware or software > can be trusted, then the only reasonable option is to rely on large > communities of like-minded people to develop, extend, and inspect > freely available code on a continuous basis. Essentially, we may need > to open source everything.” > > > > > http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/the-coming-push-open-source-everything-223011?source=IFWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2013-07-22 > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jul 23 04:52:13 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:52:13 +1000 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this Message-ID: A firmware upgrade? Norbert Bollow wrote: >Hmm.. when the concern is about the possibility of backdoors in the >chips themselves, I wonder whether it is possible to reliably compare a >chip with what it should be like according to its source code. > >What kind of equipment is needed for doing that? An electron microscope? > >Greetings, >Norbert > > >Am Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:05:28 +0530 >schrieb "michael gurstein" : > >> Thanks for this Ian… It seems to me to be an interesting and >> reasonable approach and even something that CS could look to include >> in it's PRISM/surveillance policy response framework… >> >> >> >> I'm wondering what the downsides might be? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of >> this >> >> >> >> Interesting article on open source futures in response to PRISM et al >> >> >> >> >> >> If we're at a point where no piece of commercial hardware or software >> can be trusted, then the only reasonable option is to rely on large >> communities of like-minded people to develop, extend, and inspect >> freely available code on a continuous basis. Essentially, we may need >> to open source everything.” >> >> >> >> >> http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/the-coming-push-open-source-everything-223011?source=IFWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2013-07-22 >> >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 23 05:28:38 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:28:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130723112838.1f23dd87@quill> Upgrading the firmware to a known open source version will help resolve the trust issue only if independent third parties are able to verify that the firmware upgrade process truly gets rid of all previously installed firmware. If hardware is distributed with pre-installed firmware-based backdoors, presumably hardware measures might have been taken to protect that backdoor firmware against being deactivated by the standard firmware upgrade process. Greetings, Norbert Ian Peter wrote: > A firmware upgrade? > > > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >Hmm.. when the concern is about the possibility of backdoors in the > >chips themselves, I wonder whether it is possible to reliably > >compare a chip with what it should be like according to its source > >code. > > > >What kind of equipment is needed for doing that? An electron > >microscope? > > > >Greetings, > >Norbert > > > > > >Am Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:05:28 +0530 > >schrieb "michael gurstein" : > > > >> Thanks for this Ian… It seems to me to be an interesting and > >> reasonable approach and even something that CS could look to > >> include in it's PRISM/surveillance policy response framework… > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm wondering what the downsides might be? > >> > >> > >> > >> M > >> > >> > >> > >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian > >> Peter Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:20 AM To: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Maybe > >> something good might come out of all of this > >> > >> > >> > >> Interesting article on open source futures in response to PRISM et > >> al > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> If we're at a point where no piece of commercial hardware or > >> software can be trusted, then the only reasonable option is to > >> rely on large communities of like-minded people to develop, > >> extend, and inspect freely available code on a continuous basis. > >> Essentially, we may need to open source everything.” > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/the-coming-push-open-source-everything-223011?source=IFWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2013-07-22 -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jul 23 06:06:06 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:06:06 +1000 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this In-Reply-To: <20130723112838.1f23dd87@quill> References: <20130723112838.1f23dd87@quill> Message-ID: Yes but the concept would not be retrofitting open source firmware to proprietary hardware, but actually developing the hardware as a verified platform for open source. You would know that you started with a verified backdoor-free hardware platform. I think that's the concept - I don't think it's perfect, but it does allow a large developer community to examine platform developments and contribute to them. -and if (as the article suggests) this would be attractive to large corporate clients, there could be a market for such a product. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:28 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this Upgrading the firmware to a known open source version will help resolve the trust issue only if independent third parties are able to verify that the firmware upgrade process truly gets rid of all previously installed firmware. If hardware is distributed with pre-installed firmware-based backdoors, presumably hardware measures might have been taken to protect that backdoor firmware against being deactivated by the standard firmware upgrade process. Greetings, Norbert Ian Peter wrote: > A firmware upgrade? > > > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > >Hmm.. when the concern is about the possibility of backdoors in the > >chips themselves, I wonder whether it is possible to reliably > >compare a chip with what it should be like according to its source > >code. > > > >What kind of equipment is needed for doing that? An electron > >microscope? > > > >Greetings, > >Norbert > > > > > >Am Tue, 23 Jul 2013 10:05:28 +0530 > >schrieb "michael gurstein" : > > > >> Thanks for this Ian… It seems to me to be an interesting and > >> reasonable approach and even something that CS could look to > >> include in it's PRISM/surveillance policy response framework… > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm wondering what the downsides might be? > >> > >> > >> > >> M > >> > >> > >> > >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian > >> Peter Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:20 AM To: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Maybe > >> something good might come out of all of this > >> > >> > >> > >> Interesting article on open source futures in response to PRISM et > >> al > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> If we're at a point where no piece of commercial hardware or > >> software can be trusted, then the only reasonable option is to > >> rely on large communities of like-minded people to develop, > >> extend, and inspect freely available code on a continuous basis. > >> Essentially, we may need to open source everything.” > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-center/the-coming-push-open-source-everything-223011?source=IFWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2013-07-22 -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jul 23 06:20:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:20:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this In-Reply-To: References: <20130723112838.1f23dd87@quill> Message-ID: <20130723122042.38e73c04@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > You would know that you started with a verified backdoor-free > hardware platform. Ok, so let's say that there is verified backdoor-free source code for a chip and a company that claims to produce chips corresponding to that source code. How can that claim be independently verified by third parties? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jul 23 06:22:37 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 07:22:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this In-Reply-To: <20130723122042.38e73c04@quill> References: <20130723112838.1f23dd87@quill> <20130723122042.38e73c04@quill> Message-ID: <51EE596D.8070406@cafonso.ca> There should be a way to do independent certification. --c.a. On 07/23/2013 07:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Ian Peter wrote: > >> You would know that you started with a verified backdoor-free >> hardware platform. > > Ok, so let's say that there is verified backdoor-free source code for a > chip and a company that claims to produce chips corresponding to that > source code. > > How can that claim be independently verified by third parties? > > 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 daniel at digsys.bg Tue Jul 23 06:40:13 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:40:13 +0300 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this In-Reply-To: <51EE596D.8070406@cafonso.ca> References: <20130723112838.1f23dd87@quill> <20130723122042.38e73c04@quill> <51EE596D.8070406@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51EE5D8D.10108@digsys.bg> On 23.07.13 13:22, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > There should be a way to do independent certification. Like there is today, with proprietary code? What good is a certification, when the certifying party has received an GAG order from some three letter agency? Or the certification party is corrupt? There is no escaping this, as long as a "government agency" has superpowers. Also, about Open Source: remember the claims that NSA has planted backdoors in the IPSEC implementation in OpenBSD? My take on all this is that security does not happen because we mandate everyone uses certain code -- as this is exactly the path to having that code compromised. Security comes from educating people that it is all in their very own hands and that nobody, no Government, no civil society organization, nobody but they themselves can secure their own life. Sorry to pour this much cold water :) Daniel > > --c.a. > > On 07/23/2013 07:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> You would know that you started with a verified backdoor-free >>> hardware platform. >> Ok, so let's say that there is verified backdoor-free source code for a >> chip and a company that claims to produce chips corresponding to that >> source code. >> >> How can that claim be independently verified by third parties? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jul 23 07:47:00 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:47:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] Maybe something good might come out of all of this In-Reply-To: <51EE5D8D.10108@digsys.bg> References: <20130723112838.1f23dd87@quill> <20130723122042.38e73c04@quill> <51EE596D.8070406@cafonso.ca> <51EE5D8D.10108@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <51EE6D34.2010603@cafonso.ca> OK, educating people -- we propose this every time we confront a complicated issue like this. And the result will unfortunately retain the vulnerabilities, since people are actual humans with diverse understandings, behaviors, commitments etc. The same vulnerabilities which might happen with an effort to create an independent certifier... But should we then throw everything away and just go plant tomatoes (or, in Europe, apples)? --c.a. On 07/23/2013 07:40 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On 23.07.13 13:22, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> There should be a way to do independent certification. > > Like there is today, with proprietary code? > > What good is a certification, when the certifying party has received an > GAG order from some three letter agency? Or the certification party is > corrupt? > > There is no escaping this, as long as a "government agency" has > superpowers. > > Also, about Open Source: remember the claims that NSA has planted > backdoors in the IPSEC implementation in OpenBSD? > > My take on all this is that security does not happen because we mandate > everyone uses certain code -- as this is exactly the path to having that > code compromised. Security comes from educating people that it is all in > their very own hands and that nobody, no Government, no civil society > organization, nobody but they themselves can secure their own life. > > Sorry to pour this much cold water :) > > Daniel > >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 07/23/2013 07:20 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>>> You would know that you started with a verified backdoor-free >>>> hardware platform. >>> Ok, so let's say that there is verified backdoor-free source code for a >>> chip and a company that claims to produce chips corresponding to that >>> source code. >>> >>> How can that claim be independently verified by third parties? >>> >>> 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 tracey at traceynaughton.com Tue Jul 23 23:44:36 2013 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:44:36 +1000 Subject: [governance] Results and Report from NomCom - Appeals Team 2013 - 2014 Message-ID: <73B2C90F-3409-4D06-82AC-63F2E3B31696@traceynaughton.com> Folks, The following candidates have been selected to take over with immediate effect, from the current Appeals Team. On behalf of the selection team, I'd like to thank those members who served for the last year and welcome the new Appeals Team who are: Asama Abel Excel Catherine Roy Hempal Shrestha Michael Gurstein Mawaki Chango I am now handing over to the Co-ordinators to orientate the new team. To follow is a short report on the process we used to select the team. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report on the selection of the 2013 - 2014 IGC Appeals Team The selection process began on June 14th when I accepted the role of non-voting chair of the selection committee. The randomly selected group of voting NomCom members were: 10) Carlos Vera Quintana 9) José Francisco Callo Romero 11) Izumi Aizu 21) Wilson Abigaba 17) Rudi Vansnick The reserves: 8) Deirdre Williams (first reserve) 2) Jeremy Malcolm (second reserve) Both reserves were pressed into service when Rudi Vansnick and Izumi Aizu were unable to serve. The final NomCom consisted of: Carlos Vera Quintana José Francisco Callo Romero Wilson Abigaba Deirdre Williams Jeremy Malcolm Tracey Naughton - non-voting chair On June 26th draft selection criteria were posted to the NomCom and were subsequently adjusted and agreed. The criteria were then posted to the Governance list and several further adjustments were proposed. Direct email discussions were conducted with people suggesting changes, following which the NomCom then agreed on the final selection criteria and questions to be covered by applicants in their nominations. (see below) A call for nominations was posted to the Governance list on July 3rd. This resulted in three self nominations. Since the IGC Charter calls for five members to form an Appeals Team a further call for nominations was posted with an extended deadline, July 10th. This attracted three additional candidates, one of whom was not eligible to serve as he was a current member of the Appeals team and not eligible for renomination. At this point it transpired that one member of the NomCom may have intended to nominate himself for the Appeals Team rather than the NomCom. This misunderstanding was due to linguistic barriers and the concerned member has been encouraged to apply next year. As a member of the NomCom recalls, there was potential confusion on the list between the call for NomCom members for random selection and discussion about the Appeals Team itself. This could have been difficult for non-English speakers to follow and is an on-going matter for this list. The Call for Proposals is pasted below for your reference. Regards, Tracey __________________ Tracey Naughton (Africa based attendee at preparatory and official WSIS Summits, Geneva and Tunis) Communication for Development Consultant Community Engagement and International Standards Consultant - Extractive Sector ____________________________________ based in Victoria, Australia land line: +613 54706853 mobile: +61 413 019 707 skype: tnaughton9999 Call for nominees from the IGC List to serve on the Appeals Team for 2013 - 2014 (posted july 3rd 2013) I post this in my capacity as non-voting Chair of the NomCom for the selection process. I hope that many of you will be very enthusiastic about nominating! Background The role of the Appeals Team is described in the IGC Charter as follows: An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as defined within the Charter. Coordinators are not qualified to be members of the appeals team. To see how the nominating committee is selected, visit: http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process Duties of the Appeals Team Any time 4 individual members of the IGC co-sign a statement on the main IGC mailing list they can appeal any decision of the coordinators. When a decision is appealed, the appeals team will review any discussions that occurred and will request comments from the IGC membership. Based on the information they collect and discussion, they will decide on the merit of the appeal. Decisions by the appeals team are based on a majority vote of the appeal team, i.e., three (3) or ore votes, except in the case of coordinator recall which requires full consensus. The decision of the appeals team will be final on every decision reviewed. Selection Criteria and information requested: To nominate yourself or another consenting person, please send the NomCom a statement that answers the following questions and selection criteria. Please send this statement and your CV before the end of your business day on Monday 8th July 2013. 1. Your name, email and contact number 2. The civil society entities (network or organisations) that you are affiliated to. If you have been nominated by such a network or entity please provide information on the selection process. 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 Please respond to the following criteria in your nomination statement: - your interaction with the IGC List - your experience, if any, in human resources/conflict management - your technical knowledge related to IGC discussions The NomCom will also take into account: - the content of your CV - regional and gender balance - as per members of the current Appeals team, the IGC Coordinators and the NomCom members, voting and non-voting, are not eligible to nominate Please contact me if you have any questions. The NomCom looks forward to your enthusiastic nominations! warm regards, Tracey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 09:05:38 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:05:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=3A_The_Price_of_Hypocrisy_-_Evgeny_Morozo?= =?UTF-8?Q?v_on_Information_Consumerism_-_=C3=9Cberwachung_-_FAZ?= References: Message-ID: Great article. His point of close relationships is really interesting. > http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/ueberwachung/information-consumerism-the-price-of-hypocrisy-12292374.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Wed Jul 24 14:52:48 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:52:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=3A=5FThe=5FPrice=5Fof=5FHypocrisy=5F-?= =?UTF-8?Q?=5FEvgeny=5FMorozo_v=5Fon=5FInformation=5FConsumerism=5F-=5F?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=9Cberwachung=5F-=5FFAZ?= Message-ID: <20130724115248.3256046495ccff5cef1c856a37184d19.865853695c.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 15:00:07 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:00:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Domino_effect_starts=3A_Vigilantismo?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3A_Gov=2E_do_Rio_emite_Decreto_p/_solicita=E7=E3o_de_regi?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?stros_telef=F4nicos_e_de_Internet?= Message-ID: From Paranagua, an important (and frustrating news) comes from Brazil. Sorry for cross-posting, but I never know who is in what list, in this is relevant to all of these lists. :-) In a executive Decree, the state of Rio de Janeiro, just published, as set as law the obligation of telecom and ISP companies respond to personal data and communications request in 24 hours, without court order. The governor of Rio was the target of the protests, and the decree comes under the justification of preventing vandalism... This issue was not in the first draft of the decree presented to the population earlier this month. Really sad news. Carol ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pedro Paranaguá Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM Subject: [sociedade-civil] Vigilantismo: Gov. do Rio emite Decreto p/ solicitação de registros telefônicos e de Internet To: Lista da sociedade civil para discutir a reforma da lei de direitos autorais Decreto de Cabral é ilegal, dizem juristas Solicitação de registros telefônicos em investigações de protestos é criticada 23 de julho de 2013 | 21h 11 Felipe Werneck e Heloisa Aruth Sturm / RIO Atualizado às 21h56 Juristas questionam a legalidade do decreto do governador Sérgio Cabral (PMDB) publicado no Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio de anteontem que cria a Comissão Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações Públicas (CEIV). De acordo com o parágrafo único do artigo 3.º, as operadoras de telefonia e provedores de internet “terão prazo máximo de 24 horas para atendimento dos pedidos de informações” do órgão. A norma, cuja legalidade é questionada, não existia na versão do decreto apresentada à imprensa pelo governador no dia 19. Cabral é o principal alvo dos protestos. O grupo de investigação é formado pelo Ministério Público Estadual (MPE), Secretaria de Segurança e Polícias Civil e Militar. O advogado Técio Lins e Silva comparou o decreto n.º 44.302 a comissões de inquérito criadas na ditadura militar e afirmou que “está entre o delírio e o abuso de poder”. “É caso de impeachment, há uma violação clara de direitos constitucionais.” Mestre em direito constitucional, Paulo Rená também questionou a legalidade do texto e afirmou que, na prática, ele “instaura um estado de exceção no Rio e configura uso abusivo do poder estatal”. Segundo o jurista, a previsão de obrigação sobre as empresas de telefonia e internet extrapola a competência do governador. “É uma norma que só serve para ameaçar os intermediários.” O advogado Sérgio Bermudes disse que o parágrafo que exige das empresas de telefonia e internet que entreguem informações de usuários é questionável, mas não vê inconstitucionalidade. Para Bermudes, trata-se de “um expediente canhestro inventado pelo governador para retirá-lo do foco, porque as manifestações são contra ele.” Ex-presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e professor de direito constitucional, Carlos Velloso disse não ver inconstitucionalidade, mas faz uma ponderação: “Seria questionável, sim, se poderia o decreto estabelecer prazo de 24 horas para atendimento”. O professor de direito constitucional da Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) Cláudio Souza Neto criticou a composição da comissão porque ela “acaba militarizando a investigação criminal”. * Prioridade.* O artigo 3.º estabelece que solicitações e determinações da comissão encaminhadas a todos os órgãos públicos e privados do Rio “terão prioridade absoluta em relação a quaisquer outras atividades da sua competência ou atribuição”. Segundo o artigo 2.º, a comissão poderá “requisitar informações, realizar diligências e praticar quaisquer atos necessários à instrução de procedimentos”. A assessoria do procurador-geral de Justiça, Marfan Martins Vieira, afirmou que “não haverá quebra de sigilo sem decisão judicial”. Em nota, o MPE alegou que “o decreto limita-se a fixar prazo para resposta dos pedidos de informação da comissão, sejam eles formulados diretamente ou por meio de decisão judicial”. Na segunda-feira, 22, o procurador que preside a comissão, Eduardo Lima Neto, encerrou uma entrevista coletiva após dois minutos. “Estamos construindo a forma de atuar e não posso revelar detalhes”, disse ele, afirmando que “direitos serão respeitados” e que “policiais serão investigados”. Neto não quis comentar a prisão na segunda-feira de dois repórteres do grupo Mídia Ninja, acusados de incitar a violência. *Acusação.* Na segunda-feira, 22, o MPE formalizou denúncia contra dois homens acusados de vandalismo em manifestações realizadas nos dias 17 e 20 de junho. Eles são acusados por uso de explosivos, formação de quadrilha e incitação ao crime, além de dano ao patrimônio. Foi requerida à Justiça a prisão preventiva dos dois. As polícias Civil e Militar foram procuradas para informar se estão investigando a eventual participação de policiais na incitação à violência durante a manifestação na rua do Palácio Guanabara na segunda-feira, 22. A Polícia Civil afirmou que a comissão “vai analisar o vídeo”. Em nota, a PM informou que mantém agentes do setor de Inteligência acompanhando manifestações, “com o objetivo de obter informações e prever movimentos, (...) importantes para as decisões de comando”. Mas que “esses agentes trabalham apenas com a observação” e “imaginar que um policial vá atirar um coquetel molotov em colegas de profissão, colocando suas vidas em risco, é algo que ultrapassa os limites do bom senso e revela uma trama sórdida para justificar a violência criminosa desses vândalos”. *Nota. *O governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro emitiu uma nota de esclarecimento à imprensa: "O decreto do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro que cria a Comissão Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações Públicas (CEIV) sempre esteve em absoluta sintonia com o Ministério Público RJ e, em momento algum, estabeleceu que a CEIV quebrasse sigilos. Somente à Justiça caberá a quebra de sigilos solicitados pela Comissão Especial que é presidida pelo MP-RJ". http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,decreto-de-cabral-e-ilegal-dizem-juristas,1056604,0.htm _______________________________________________ Essa é uma lista fechada. Por favor seja prudente ao redirecionar mensagens para listas abertas _______________________________________________ sociedade-civil mailing list sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org http://lists.gpopai.org/listinfo.cgi/sociedade-civil-gpopai.org -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jul 24 15:00:46 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:00:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Domino_effect_starts=3A_Vigilan?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?tismo=3A_Gov=2E_do_Rio_emite_Decreto_p/_solicita=E7=E3o_de?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_registros_telef=F4nicos_e_de_Internet?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is the official text, if you read Portuguese - https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1014155_673339922695445_55928446_n.jpg 2013/7/24 Carolina Rossini > From Paranagua, an important (and frustrating news) comes from Brazil. > > Sorry for cross-posting, but I never know who is in what list, in this is > relevant to all of these lists. :-) > > In a executive Decree, the state of Rio de Janeiro, just published, as set > as law the obligation of telecom and ISP companies respond to personal data > and communications request in 24 hours, without court order. > > The governor of Rio was the target of the protests, and the decree comes > under the justification of preventing vandalism... > > This issue was not in the first draft of the decree presented to the > population earlier this month. Really sad news. > > Carol > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Pedro Paranaguá > Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM > Subject: [sociedade-civil] Vigilantismo: Gov. do Rio emite Decreto p/ > solicitação de registros telefônicos e de Internet > To: Lista da sociedade civil para discutir a reforma da lei de direitos > autorais > > > > > Decreto de Cabral é ilegal, dizem juristas Solicitação de registros > telefônicos em investigações de protestos é criticada > 23 de julho de 2013 | 21h 11 > > > Felipe Werneck e Heloisa Aruth Sturm / RIO > > Atualizado às 21h56 > > Juristas questionam a legalidade do decreto do governador Sérgio Cabral > (PMDB) publicado no Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio de anteontem que cria a > Comissão Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações > Públicas (CEIV). De acordo com o parágrafo único do artigo 3.º, as > operadoras de telefonia e provedores de internet “terão prazo máximo de 24 > horas para atendimento dos pedidos de informações” do órgão. > > A norma, cuja legalidade é questionada, não existia na versão do decreto > apresentada à imprensa pelo governador no dia 19. Cabral é o principal alvo > dos protestos. O grupo de investigação é formado pelo Ministério Público > Estadual (MPE), Secretaria de Segurança e Polícias Civil e Militar. > > O advogado Técio Lins e Silva comparou o decreto n.º 44.302 a comissões de > inquérito criadas na ditadura militar e afirmou que “está entre o delírio e > o abuso de poder”. “É caso de impeachment, há uma violação clara de > direitos constitucionais.” > > Mestre em direito constitucional, Paulo Rená também questionou a > legalidade do texto e afirmou que, na prática, ele “instaura um estado de > exceção no Rio e configura uso abusivo do poder estatal”. Segundo o > jurista, a previsão de obrigação sobre as empresas de telefonia e internet > extrapola a competência do governador. “É uma norma que só serve para > ameaçar os intermediários.” > > O advogado Sérgio Bermudes disse que o parágrafo que exige das empresas de > telefonia e internet que entreguem informações de usuários é questionável, > mas não vê inconstitucionalidade. Para Bermudes, trata-se de “um expediente > canhestro inventado pelo governador para retirá-lo do foco, porque as > manifestações são contra ele.” > > Ex-presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e professor de direito > constitucional, Carlos Velloso disse não ver inconstitucionalidade, mas faz > uma ponderação: “Seria questionável, sim, se poderia o decreto estabelecer > prazo de 24 horas para atendimento”. > > O professor de direito constitucional da Universidade Federal Fluminense > (UFF) Cláudio Souza Neto criticou a composição da comissão porque ela > “acaba militarizando a investigação criminal”. > * > Prioridade.* O artigo 3.º estabelece que solicitações e determinações da > comissão encaminhadas a todos os órgãos públicos e privados do Rio “terão > prioridade absoluta em relação a quaisquer outras atividades da sua > competência ou atribuição”. Segundo o artigo 2.º, a comissão poderá > “requisitar informações, realizar diligências e praticar quaisquer atos > necessários à instrução de procedimentos”. > > A assessoria do procurador-geral de Justiça, Marfan Martins Vieira, > afirmou que “não haverá quebra de sigilo sem decisão judicial”. Em nota, o > MPE alegou que “o decreto limita-se a fixar prazo para resposta dos pedidos > de informação da comissão, sejam eles formulados diretamente ou por meio de > decisão judicial”. > > Na segunda-feira, 22, o procurador que preside a comissão, Eduardo Lima > Neto, encerrou uma entrevista coletiva após dois minutos. “Estamos > construindo a forma de atuar e não posso revelar detalhes”, disse ele, > afirmando que “direitos serão respeitados” e que “policiais serão > investigados”. Neto não quis comentar a prisão na segunda-feira de dois > repórteres do grupo Mídia Ninja, acusados de incitar a violência. > > *Acusação.* Na segunda-feira, 22, o MPE formalizou denúncia contra dois > homens acusados de vandalismo em manifestações realizadas nos dias 17 e 20 > de junho. Eles são acusados por uso de explosivos, formação de quadrilha e > incitação ao crime, além de dano ao patrimônio. Foi requerida à Justiça a > prisão preventiva dos dois. > > As polícias Civil e Militar foram procuradas para informar se estão > investigando a eventual participação de policiais na incitação à violência > durante a manifestação na rua do Palácio Guanabara na segunda-feira, 22. A > Polícia Civil afirmou que a comissão “vai analisar o vídeo”. > > Em nota, a PM informou que mantém agentes do setor de Inteligência > acompanhando manifestações, “com o objetivo de obter informações e prever > movimentos, (...) importantes para as decisões de comando”. Mas que “esses > agentes trabalham apenas com a observação” e “imaginar que um policial vá > atirar um coquetel molotov em colegas de profissão, colocando suas vidas em > risco, é algo que ultrapassa os limites do bom senso e revela uma trama > sórdida para justificar a violência criminosa desses vândalos”. > > *Nota. *O governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro emitiu uma nota de > esclarecimento à imprensa: > > "O decreto do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro que cria a Comissão > Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações Públicas > (CEIV) sempre esteve em absoluta sintonia com o Ministério Público RJ e, em > momento algum, estabeleceu que a CEIV quebrasse sigilos. Somente à Justiça > caberá a quebra de sigilos solicitados pela Comissão Especial que é > presidida pelo MP-RJ". > > http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,decreto-de-cabral-e-ilegal-dizem-juristas,1056604,0.htm > > _______________________________________________ > Essa é uma lista fechada. Por favor seja prudente ao redirecionar > mensagens para listas abertas > _______________________________________________ > sociedade-civil mailing list > sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org > http://lists.gpopai.org/listinfo.cgi/sociedade-civil-gpopai.org > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jul 24 16:28:53 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:28:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=3A_The_Price_of_Hypocrisy_-_Evgeny_Mo?= =?UTF-8?Q?rozov_on_Information_Consumerism_-_=C3=9Cberwachung_-_FAZ?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130724222853.56fbe89c@quill> Carolina wrote: > Great article. His point of close relationships is really > interesting. > > > http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/ueberwachung/information-consumerism-the-price-of-hypocrisy-12292374.html Strongly agreed. What are the policy alternatives to simply doing nothing about the “information consumerism” concerns? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Jul 24 17:56:42 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 23:56:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=3A_The_Price_of_Hypocrisy_-_Evgeny_Mo?= =?UTF-8?Q?rozov_on_Information_Consumerism_-_=C3=9Cberwachung_-_FAZ?= Message-ID: <2081191440.26640.1374703002671.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m24> Dear Caroline, Robert and all Wow ! When the FAZ, the very conservative business newspaper tackles the US, there might be some very serious reasons ! Actually, there are a lot. I can't but fully agree to Evgeny Morozow's opinion. I found another very cutting argument in his article : Message du 24/07/13 22:29 > De : "Norbert Bollow" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] : The Price of Hypocrisy - Evgeny Morozov on Information Consumerism - Überwachung - FAZ > > Carolina wrote: > > > Great article. His point of close relationships is really > > interesting. > > > > > http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/ueberwachung/information-consumerism-the-price-of-hypocrisy-12292374.html > > Strongly agreed. > > What are the policy alternatives to simply doing nothing about the > “information consumerism” concerns? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 25 01:40:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:10:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5BIRPCoalition=5D_Domino_effec?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?t_starts=3A_Vigilantismo=3A_Gov=2E_do_Rio_emite_Decreto_p/?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_solicita=E7=E3o_de_registros_telef=F4nicos_e_de_Internet?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51F0BA4B.7090201@itforchange.net> On Thursday 25 July 2013 12:30 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >From Paranagua, an important (and frustrating news) comes from Brazil. > > Sorry for cross-posting, but I never know who is in what list, in this > is relevant to all of these lists. :-) > > In a executive Decree, the state of Rio de Janeiro, just published, as > set as law the obligation of telecom and ISP companies respond to > personal data and communications request in 24 hours, without court > order. This is a disturbing news.... but also, quite the trend worldwide... doing Internet governance by crisis response method. And one can be sure that such a method provides the worst possible results . Alternatively, internet governance can be done by creating (anticipative) spaces and means or normative debates, followed by development of principles (that the Marco Civil process did so well in Brazil).... Till now, civil society (with perhaps the honourable exception of the Marco Civil process) - especially global civil society - has taken the back-foot defensive stance, and we have good proof all around us that this has not worked. BTW, see the latest news about the US gov (and presumably others) seeking encryption keys from Internet companies . What happens when we create and support legitimate IG governance venues, and now I am mostly speaking of the global stage, it forces a large scale normative debate around key issues... Negotiations based on competing values, and often interests, mostly brings up stuff that is higher and lager than the sum total of the part --- that is the beauty of democratic political processes. But, unfortunately, we seem to have lost faith in democratic political processes - which no doubt, as everything else in the world, are less than perfect. I think much can come out of a focussed and sustained normative discussion - that can really only takes place when some kind of real policy making is possible, even imminent - on the new issues that face us today. (First we need to acknowledge that there are a lot of new issues here, which need new responses.) We wont get a perfect solution.... Any new normative/ principles/ legal framework would not fully be smelling of roses, but overall, we, and the global public interest, will gain through such open, democratic political processes. That is my belief. Civil society is missing the opportunity of leading the way in these formative times, through anticipative norms, principles and law building exercises, which are shaped by it, at least initially because it (the civil society) is ready to see in the future, and is basically long term public interest driven. (Such reluctance to take up this role is because, excuse my idealogical leap, there seems to be a deep anti-political streak built in the dominant civil society which seems to arise from the neo-lib persuasions of the multistakeholder company that it keeps.) In default, we will only have Internet governance being formed as crisis response, and the architecture that is getting built in this manner would take us towards the the worst of all the possible worlds... But that is where we are headed, unless civil society, for a start, changes tack. parminder > > The governor of Rio was the target of the protests, and the decree > comes under the justification of preventing vandalism... > > This issue was not in the first draft of the decree presented to the > population earlier this month. Really sad news. > > Carol > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Pedro Paranaguá* > > Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM > Subject: [sociedade-civil] Vigilantismo: Gov. do Rio emite Decreto p/ > solicitação de registros telefônicos e de Internet > To: Lista da sociedade civil para discutir a reforma da lei de > direitos autorais > > > > > > Decreto de Cabral é ilegal, dizem juristas > > > Solicitação de registros telefônicos em investigações de > protestos é criticada > > 23 de julho de 2013 | 21h 11 > > > Felipe Werneck e Heloisa Aruth Sturm / RIO > > Atualizado às 21h56 > > Juristas questionam a legalidade do decreto do governador Sérgio > Cabral (PMDB) publicado no Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio de > anteontem que cria a Comissão Especial de Investigação de Atos de > Vandalismo em Manifestações Públicas (CEIV). De acordo com o parágrafo > único do artigo 3.º, as operadoras de telefonia e provedores de > internet "terão prazo máximo de 24 horas para atendimento dos pedidos > de informações" do órgão. > > A norma, cuja legalidade é questionada, não existia na versão do > decreto apresentada à imprensa pelo governador no dia 19. Cabral é o > principal alvo dos protestos. O grupo de investigação é formado pelo > Ministério Público Estadual (MPE), Secretaria de Segurança e Polícias > Civil e Militar. > > O advogado Técio Lins e Silva comparou o decreto n.º 44.302 a > comissões de inquérito criadas na ditadura militar e afirmou que "está > entre o delírio e o abuso de poder". "É caso de impeachment, há uma > violação clara de direitos constitucionais." > > Mestre em direito constitucional, Paulo Rená também questionou a > legalidade do texto e afirmou que, na prática, ele "instaura um estado > de exceção no Rio e configura uso abusivo do poder estatal". Segundo o > jurista, a previsão de obrigação sobre as empresas de telefonia e > internet extrapola a competência do governador. "É uma norma que só > serve para ameaçar os intermediários." > > O advogado Sérgio Bermudes disse que o parágrafo que exige das > empresas de telefonia e internet que entreguem informações de usuários > é questionável, mas não vê inconstitucionalidade. Para Bermudes, > trata-se de "um expediente canhestro inventado pelo governador para > retirá-lo do foco, porque as manifestações são contra ele." > > Ex-presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e professor de direito > constitucional, Carlos Velloso disse não ver inconstitucionalidade, > mas faz uma ponderação: "Seria questionável, sim, se poderia o decreto > estabelecer prazo de 24 horas para atendimento". > > O professor de direito constitucional da Universidade Federal > Fluminense (UFF) Cláudio Souza Neto criticou a composição da comissão > porque ela "acaba militarizando a investigação criminal". > * > Prioridade.* O artigo 3.º estabelece que solicitações e determinações > da comissão encaminhadas a todos os órgãos públicos e privados do Rio > "terão prioridade absoluta em relação a quaisquer outras atividades da > sua competência ou atribuição". Segundo o artigo 2.º, a comissão > poderá "requisitar informações, realizar diligências e praticar > quaisquer atos necessários à instrução de procedimentos". > > A assessoria do procurador-geral de Justiça, Marfan Martins Vieira, > afirmou que "não haverá quebra de sigilo sem decisão judicial". Em > nota, o MPE alegou que "o decreto limita-se a fixar prazo para > resposta dos pedidos de informação da comissão, sejam eles formulados > diretamente ou por meio de decisão judicial". > > Na segunda-feira, 22, o procurador que preside a comissão, Eduardo > Lima Neto, encerrou uma entrevista coletiva após dois minutos. > "Estamos construindo a forma de atuar e não posso revelar detalhes", > disse ele, afirmando que "direitos serão respeitados" e que "policiais > serão investigados". Neto não quis comentar a prisão na > segunda-feira de dois repórteres do grupo Mídia Ninja, acusados de > incitar a violência. > > *Acusação.* Na segunda-feira, 22, o MPE formalizou denúncia contra > dois homens acusados de vandalismo em manifestações realizadas nos > dias 17 e 20 de junho. Eles são acusados por uso de explosivos, > formação de quadrilha e incitação ao crime, além de dano ao > patrimônio. Foi requerida à Justiça a prisão preventiva dos dois. > > As polícias Civil e Militar foram procuradas para informar se estão > investigando a eventual participação de policiais na incitação à > violência durante a manifestação na rua do Palácio Guanabara na > segunda-feira, 22. A Polícia Civil afirmou que a comissão "vai > analisar o vídeo". > > Em nota, a PM informou que mantém agentes do setor de Inteligência > acompanhando manifestações, "com o objetivo de obter informações e > prever movimentos, (...) importantes para as decisões de comando". Mas > que "esses agentes trabalham apenas com a observação" e "imaginar que > um policial vá atirar um coquetel molotov em colegas de profissão, > colocando suas vidas em risco, é algo que ultrapassa os limites do bom > senso e revela uma trama sórdida para justificar a violência criminosa > desses vândalos". > > *Nota. *O governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro emitiu uma nota de > esclarecimento à imprensa: > > "O decreto do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro que cria a Comissão > Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações > Públicas (CEIV) sempre esteve em absoluta sintonia com o Ministério > Público RJ e, em momento algum, estabeleceu que a CEIV quebrasse > sigilos. Somente à Justiça caberá a quebra de sigilos solicitados pela > Comissão Especial que é presidida pelo MP-RJ". > > http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,decreto-de-cabral-e-ilegal-dizem-juristas,1056604,0.htm > > _______________________________________________ > Essa é uma lista fechada. Por favor seja prudente ao redirecionar > mensagens para listas abertas > _______________________________________________ > sociedade-civil mailing list > sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org > http://lists.gpopai.org/listinfo.cgi/sociedade-civil-gpopai.org > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/ > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jul 25 01:59:26 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:29:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BIRPCoalition=5D_Domino_effect?= =?UTF-8?Q?_starts=3A_Vigilantismo=3A_Gov=2E_do_Rio_emite_Decreto_p/_solic?= =?UTF-8?Q?ita=C3=A7=C3=A3o_de_registros_telef=C3=B4nicos_e_de_Internet?= In-Reply-To: <51F0BA4B.7090201@itforchange.net> References: <51F0BA4B.7090201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I do take your point about "IG as crisis response" but perhaps a better word would have been "IG as a knee jerk reaction to a crisis" Any form of governance at all that does not budget for and respond in a measured manner to a crisis or other unexpected eventuality is fundamentally flawed. [which probably describes global IG to a T, just now, but still ..] This is something that civil society can't do of itself, or even in a "leadership" role - it needs steady and sustained multistakeholder involvement, from industry and especially from like minded lawmakers, and international organizations. --srs (iPad) On 25-Jul-2013, at 11:10, parminder wrote: > > > On Thursday 25 July 2013 12:30 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >From Paranagua, an important (and frustrating news) comes from Brazil. >> >> Sorry for cross-posting, but I never know who is in what list, in this is relevant to all of these lists. :-) >> >> In a executive Decree, the state of Rio de Janeiro, just published, as set as law the obligation of telecom and ISP companies respond to personal data and communications request in 24 hours, without court order. > > > This is a disturbing news.... but also, quite the trend worldwide... doing Internet governance by crisis response method. And one can be sure that such a method provides the worst possible results . Alternatively, internet governance can be done by creating (anticipative) spaces and means or normative debates, followed by development of principles (that the Marco Civil process did so well in Brazil).... > > Till now, civil society (with perhaps the honourable exception of the Marco Civil process) - especially global civil society - has taken the back-foot defensive stance, and we have good proof all around us that this has not worked. BTW, see the latest news about the US gov (and presumably others) seeking encryption keys from Internet companies. > > What happens when we create and support legitimate IG governance venues, and now I am mostly speaking of the global stage, it forces a large scale normative debate around key issues... Negotiations based on competing values, and often interests, mostly brings up stuff that is higher and lager than the sum total of the part --- that is the beauty of democratic political processes. But, unfortunately, we seem to have lost faith in democratic political processes - which no doubt, as everything else in the world, are less than perfect. > > I think much can come out of a focussed and sustained normative discussion - that can really only takes place when some kind of real policy making is possible, even imminent - on the new issues that face us today. (First we need to acknowledge that there are a lot of new issues here, which need new responses.) We wont get a perfect solution.... Any new normative/ principles/ legal framework would not fully be smelling of roses, but overall, we, and the global public interest, will gain through such open, democratic political processes. That is my belief. > > Civil society is missing the opportunity of leading the way in these formative times, through anticipative norms, principles and law building exercises, which are shaped by it, at least initially because it (the civil society) is ready to see in the future, and is basically long term public interest driven. (Such reluctance to take up this role is because, excuse my idealogical leap, there seems to be a deep anti-political streak built in the dominant civil society which seems to arise from the neo-lib persuasions of the multistakeholder company that it keeps.) > > In default, we will only have Internet governance being formed as crisis response, and the architecture that is getting built in this manner would take us towards the the worst of all the possible worlds... But that is where we are headed, unless civil society, for a start, changes tack. > > parminder > > > >> >> The governor of Rio was the target of the protests, and the decree comes under the justification of preventing vandalism... >> >> This issue was not in the first draft of the decree presented to the population earlier this month. Really sad news. >> >> Carol >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Pedro Paranaguá >> Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM >> Subject: [sociedade-civil] Vigilantismo: Gov. do Rio emite Decreto p/ solicitação de registros telefônicos e de Internet >> To: Lista da sociedade civil para discutir a reforma da lei de direitos autorais >> >> >> >> >> Decreto de Cabral é ilegal, dizem juristas >> >> Solicitação de registros telefônicos em investigações de protestos é criticada >> >> 23 de julho de 2013 | 21h 11 >> >> >> Felipe Werneck e Heloisa Aruth Sturm / RIO >> Atualizado às 21h56 >> >> Juristas questionam a legalidade do decreto do governador Sérgio Cabral (PMDB) publicado no Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio de anteontem que cria a Comissão Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações Públicas (CEIV). De acordo com o parágrafo único do artigo 3.º, as operadoras de telefonia e provedores de internet “terão prazo máximo de 24 horas para atendimento dos pedidos de informações” do órgão. >> >> A norma, cuja legalidade é questionada, não existia na versão do decreto apresentada à imprensa pelo governador no dia 19. Cabral é o principal alvo dos protestos. O grupo de investigação é formado pelo Ministério Público Estadual (MPE), Secretaria de Segurança e Polícias Civil e Militar. >> >> O advogado Técio Lins e Silva comparou o decreto n.º 44.302 a comissões de inquérito criadas na ditadura militar e afirmou que “está entre o delírio e o abuso de poder”. “É caso de impeachment, há uma violação clara de direitos constitucionais.” >> >> Mestre em direito constitucional, Paulo Rená também questionou a legalidade do texto e afirmou que, na prática, ele “instaura um estado de exceção no Rio e configura uso abusivo do poder estatal”. Segundo o jurista, a previsão de obrigação sobre as empresas de telefonia e internet extrapola a competência do governador. “É uma norma que só serve para ameaçar os intermediários.” >> >> O advogado Sérgio Bermudes disse que o parágrafo que exige das empresas de telefonia e internet que entreguem informações de usuários é questionável, mas não vê inconstitucionalidade. Para Bermudes, trata-se de “um expediente canhestro inventado pelo governador para retirá-lo do foco, porque as manifestações são contra ele.” >> >> Ex-presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e professor de direito constitucional, Carlos Velloso disse não ver inconstitucionalidade, mas faz uma ponderação: “Seria questionável, sim, se poderia o decreto estabelecer prazo de 24 horas para atendimento”. >> >> O professor de direito constitucional da Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) Cláudio Souza Neto criticou a composição da comissão porque ela “acaba militarizando a investigação criminal”. >> >> Prioridade. O artigo 3.º estabelece que solicitações e determinações da comissão encaminhadas a todos os órgãos públicos e privados do Rio “terão prioridade absoluta em relação a quaisquer outras atividades da sua competência ou atribuição”. Segundo o artigo 2.º, a comissão poderá “requisitar informações, realizar diligências e praticar quaisquer atos necessários à instrução de procedimentos”. >> >> A assessoria do procurador-geral de Justiça, Marfan Martins Vieira, afirmou que “não haverá quebra de sigilo sem decisão judicial”. Em nota, o MPE alegou que “o decreto limita-se a fixar prazo para resposta dos pedidos de informação da comissão, sejam eles formulados diretamente ou por meio de decisão judicial”. >> >> Na segunda-feira, 22, o procurador que preside a comissão, Eduardo Lima Neto, encerrou uma entrevista coletiva após dois minutos. “Estamos construindo a forma de atuar e não posso revelar detalhes”, disse ele, afirmando que “direitos serão respeitados” e que “policiais serão investigados”. Neto não quis comentar a prisão na segunda-feira de dois repórteres do grupo Mídia Ninja, acusados de incitar a violência. >> >> Acusação. Na segunda-feira, 22, o MPE formalizou denúncia contra dois homens acusados de vandalismo em manifestações realizadas nos dias 17 e 20 de junho. Eles são acusados por uso de explosivos, formação de quadrilha e incitação ao crime, além de dano ao patrimônio. Foi requerida à Justiça a prisão preventiva dos dois. >> >> As polícias Civil e Militar foram procuradas para informar se estão investigando a eventual participação de policiais na incitação à violência durante a manifestação na rua do Palácio Guanabara na segunda-feira, 22. A Polícia Civil afirmou que a comissão “vai analisar o vídeo”. >> >> Em nota, a PM informou que mantém agentes do setor de Inteligência acompanhando manifestações, “com o objetivo de obter informações e prever movimentos, (...) importantes para as decisões de comando”. Mas que “esses agentes trabalham apenas com a observação” e “imaginar que um policial vá atirar um coquetel molotov em colegas de profissão, colocando suas vidas em risco, é algo que ultrapassa os limites do bom senso e revela uma trama sórdida para justificar a violência criminosa desses vândalos”. >> >> Nota. O governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro emitiu uma nota de esclarecimento à imprensa: >> >> "O decreto do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro que cria a Comissão Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações Públicas (CEIV) sempre esteve em absoluta sintonia com o Ministério Público RJ e, em momento algum, estabeleceu que a CEIV quebrasse sigilos. Somente à Justiça caberá a quebra de sigilos solicitados pela Comissão Especial que é presidida pelo MP-RJ". >> >> http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,decreto-de-cabral-e-ilegal-dizem-juristas,1056604,0.htm >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Essa é uma lista fechada. Por favor seja prudente ao redirecionar mensagens para listas abertas >> _______________________________________________ >> sociedade-civil mailing list >> sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org >> http://lists.gpopai.org/listinfo.cgi/sociedade-civil-gpopai.org >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Carolina Rossini >> Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >> Open Technology Institute >> New America Foundation >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 25 02:22:34 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:52:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=3A_The_Price_of_Hypocrisy_-_Evgeny_Mo?= =?UTF-8?Q?rozov_on_Information_Consumerism_-_=C3=9Cberwachung_-_FAZ?= In-Reply-To: <2081191440.26640.1374703002671.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m24> References: <2081191440.26640.1374703002671.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m24> Message-ID: <51F0C42A.9040303@itforchange.net> From the Morozov's article as quoted by Jean-Louis "This is today’s America in full splendor: what cannot be accomplished through controversial legislation will be accomplished through privatization, only with far less oversight" It is this new state-corporate combination or, as the author calls it, social contract, which is the most dangerous political development of modern times. And civil society has been called to play the hand maiden and the bed maker for this partnership.... IT for Change along with partner organisations held a workshop in Delhi last week which makes precisely this point of how privatisation is used to achieve specific political interests through bypassing of democratic political processes. The worlshop was titled "Technology in Governance - An agenda for centralisation, privatisation and de-politicisation?" (workshop note is enclosed for those who are interested to know more). The workshop was attended by activists on socio-economic rights from across the country and has developed a plan of action to confront this phenomenon. It was co-orgnaised by the grassroots organisation that pioneered the right to information movement in India. parminder On Thursday 25 July 2013 03:26 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear Caroline, Robert > > and all > > Wow ! When the FAZ, the very conservative business newspaper tackles > the US, there might be some very serious reasons ! > Actually, there are a lot. I can't but fully agree to Evgeny Morozow's > opinion. > > I found another very cutting argument in his article : > > > > Europe and America felt over the defeat of the Total Information > Awareness program – a much earlier effort to e surveillance – was premature. The problem with Total Information > Awareness was that it was too big, too flashy, too dependent on > government much nimbler, leaner, more decentralized system, run by the private > sector and enabled by a social contract between Washington: while Silicon Valley runs, updates and monetizes the > digital infrastructure, the NSA can tap IT on demand. Everyone > specializes and everyone > through controversial legislation will be accomplished through > privatization, only with far less oversight privately-run healthcare providers to privately-run prisons to > privately-run militias dispatched to war zones, this is the > public-private partnership model infrastructure operates these days. Communications is no exception. > Decentralization is liberating only if there’s no powerful actor that > can rip off such an actor exists – like NSA in this case – decentralization is a > mere shibboleth. Those in power get more of what and pay less for the privilege. > > > > Good one, Mr Morozov ! I submit this article to the particular > attention of the WSIS process leaders, Unesco, UNDP and -with a > special emphasis- the ITU, for whom PPP is the "Holy Grail" and the > final solution for all ICT4D issues ! > > Best > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > CESIR > > > Message du 24/07/13 22:29 > > De : "Norbert Bollow" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] : The Price of Hypocrisy - Evgeny > Morozov on Information Consumerism - Überwachung - FAZ > > > > Carolina wrote: > > > > > Great article. His point of close relationships is really > > > interesting. > > > > > > > > http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/ueberwachung/information-consumerism-the-price-of-hypocrisy-12292374.html > > > > Strongly agreed. > > > > What are the policy alternatives to simply doing nothing about the > > “information consumerism” concerns? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to > the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Technology for depoliticising governance.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 102410 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 09:07:19 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:07:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] House Defeats Effort to Rein In N.S.A. Data Gathering Message-ID: House Defeats Effort to Rein In N.S.A. Data Gathering By JONATHAN WEISMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/us/politics/house-defeats-effort-to-rein-in-nsa-data-gathering.html?_r=0&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=edit_th_20130725&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1374757527-4jpgYHFpcRmXDYkOgVS/ag WASHINGTON — A deeply divided House defeated legislation Wednesday that would have blocked the National Security Agency from collecting vast amounts of phone records, handing the Obama administration a hard-fought victory in the first Congressional showdown over the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities since Edward J. Snowden’s security breaches last month. The 205-to-217 vote was far closer than expected and came after a brief but impassioned debate over citizens’ right to privacy and the steps the government must take to protect national security. It was a rare instance in which a classified intelligence program was openly discussed on the House floor, and disagreements over the program led to some unusual coalitions. Conservative Republicans leery of what they see as Obama administration abuses of power teamed up with liberal Democrats long opposed to intrusive intelligence programs. The Obama administration made common cause with the House Republican leadership to try to block it. House members pressing to rein in the N.S.A. vowed afterward that the outrage unleashed by Mr. Snowden’s disclosures would eventually put a brake on the agency’s activities. Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and a longtime critic of post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism efforts, said lawmakers would keep coming back with legislation to curtail the dragnets for “metadata,” whether through phone records or Internet surveillance. At the very least, the section of the Patriot Act in question will be allowed to expire in 2015, he said. “It’s going to end — now or later,” Mr. Nadler said. “The only question is when and on what terms.” Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, promised lawmakers that he would draft legislation this fall to add more privacy protections to government surveillance programs even as he begged the House to oppose blanket restrictions. The amendment to the annual Defense Department spending bill, written by Representatives Justin Amash, a libertarian Republican from Western Michigan, and John Conyers Jr., a veteran liberal Democrat from Detroit, turned Democrat against Democrat and Republican against Republican. It would have limited N.S.A. phone surveillance to specific targets of law enforcement investigations, not broad dragnets. It was only one of a series of proposals — including restricting funds for Syrian rebels and adding Congressional oversight to foreign aid to Egypt — intended to check President Obama’s foreign and intelligence policies. But in the phone surveillance program, the House’s right and left wings appeared to find a unifying cause. Representative Raúl R. Labrador, Republican of Idaho, called it “the wing nut coalition” and Mr. Amash “the chief wing nut.” Mr. Amash framed his push as a defense of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, and he found a surprising ally, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and one of the principal authors of the Patriot Act. Mr. Sensenbrenner said his handiwork was never meant to create a program that allows the government to demand the phone records of every American. “The time has come to stop it,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said. Opposing them were not only Mr. Obama and the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, but also the leaders of the nation’s defense and intelligence establishment. On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Keith Alexander, spent hours providing classified briefings to lawmakers about the program, and the White House took the unusual step of issuing a statement urging lawmakers not to approve the measure. On Wednesday, James L. Jones, the retired Marine Corps general who was Mr. Obama’s national security adviser from 2009-10, added his name to an open letter in support of preserving the N.S.A. programs that more than half a dozen top national-security officials from the Bush administration had signed. “Denying the N.S.A. such access to data will leave the nation at risk,” said the letter, which was circulated to undecided members. Mr. Rogers took a personal swipe at Mr. Amash, a darling of social media, when he said the House was not in the business of racking up “likes” on Facebook. He said the calling log program was an important tool for protecting against terrorist attacks. “This is not a game,” he fumed. “This is real. It will have real consequences.” But many rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats appeared impervious to such overtures. Representative Jared Polis, Democrat of Colorado and a supporter of the amendment, said that if the Obama administration felt strongly about defending the program, Mr. Obama would have spoken out personally. Instead, the White House released a statement under the name of the press secretary, Jay Carney. “The press secretary says hundreds of things every day,” Mr. Polis said. The divisions in Congress seemed to reflect the ambivalence in the nation. In a CBS News poll released Wednesday, 67 percent of Americans said the government’s collection of phone records was a violation of privacy. At the same time, 52 percent called it a necessary tool to help find terrorists. But the final tally in the House suggested the tide was shifting on the issue. In the weeks after the Snowden leaks, the united voices of Congressional leaders and administration officials in support of the N.S.A. programs seemed to squelch the outrage Mr. Snowden had hoped for. Anger seemed to be trained more on Mr. Snowden than on the programs he revealed. As the news media and the government chronicled Mr. Snowden’s flight from law enforcement, a web of privacy activists, libertarian conservatives and liberal civil liberties proponents rallied support behind Congressional action. House members said they received hundreds of phone calls and e-mails before Wednesday’s vote, all in favor of curtailing the N.S.A.’s authority. Ultimately, 94 House Republicans defied their leadership; 111 Democrats — a majority of the Democratic caucus — defied their president. “This is only the beginning,” Mr. Conyers vowed after the vote. The fight will shift to the Senate, where two longtime Democratic critics of N.S.A. surveillance, Mark Udall of Colorado and Ron Wyden of Oregon, immediately took up the cause. “National security is of paramount importance, yet the N.S.A.’s dragnet collection of Americans’ phone records violates innocent Americans’ privacy rights and should not continue as its exists today,” Mr. Udall said after the vote. “The U.S. House of Representatives’ bipartisan vote today proposal should be a wake-up call for the White House.” Charlie Savage contributed reporting. -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 09:57:50 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:57:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] House Defeats Effort to Rein In N.S.A. Data Gathering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017D7D3B-B404-4CDB-B2F8-D8D352DC3146@gmail.com> Thanks Diego. Sent from my iPad On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:07 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > House Defeats Effort to Rein In N.S.A. Data Gathering > By JONATHAN WEISMAN > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/us/politics/house-defeats-effort-to-rein-in-nsa-data-gathering.html?_r=0&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=edit_th_20130725&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1374757527-4jpgYHFpcRmXDYkOgVS/ag > > WASHINGTON — A deeply divided House defeated legislation Wednesday that would have blocked the National Security Agency from collecting vast amounts of phone records, handing the Obama administration a hard-fought victory in the first Congressional showdown over the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities since Edward J. Snowden’s security breaches last month. > > The 205-to-217 vote was far closer than expected and came after a brief but impassioned debate over citizens’ right to privacy and the steps the government must take to protect national security. It was a rare instance in which a classified intelligence program was openly discussed on the House floor, and disagreements over the program led to some unusual coalitions. > > Conservative Republicans leery of what they see as Obama administration abuses of power teamed up with liberal Democrats long opposed to intrusive intelligence programs. The Obama administration made common cause with the House Republican leadership to try to block it. > > House members pressing to rein in the N.S.A. vowed afterward that the outrage unleashed by Mr. Snowden’s disclosures would eventually put a brake on the agency’s activities. Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and a longtime critic of post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism efforts, said lawmakers would keep coming back with legislation to curtail the dragnets for “metadata,” whether through phone records or Internet surveillance. > > At the very least, the section of the Patriot Act in question will be allowed to expire in 2015, he said. “It’s going to end — now or later,” Mr. Nadler said. “The only question is when and on what terms.” > > Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, promised lawmakers that he would draft legislation this fall to add more privacy protections to government surveillance programs even as he begged the House to oppose blanket restrictions. > > The amendment to the annual Defense Department spending bill, written by Representatives Justin Amash, a libertarian Republican from Western Michigan, and John Conyers Jr., a veteran liberal Democrat from Detroit, turned Democrat against Democrat and Republican against Republican. > > It would have limited N.S.A. phone surveillance to specific targets of law enforcement investigations, not broad dragnets. It was only one of a series of proposals — including restricting funds for Syrian rebels and adding Congressional oversight to foreign aid to Egypt — intended to check President Obama’s foreign and intelligence policies. > > But in the phone surveillance program, the House’s right and left wings appeared to find a unifying cause. Representative Raúl R. Labrador, Republican of Idaho, called it “the wing nut coalition” and Mr. Amash “the chief wing nut.” > > Mr. Amash framed his push as a defense of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, and he found a surprising ally, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and one of the principal authors of the Patriot Act. Mr. Sensenbrenner said his handiwork was never meant to create a program that allows the government to demand the phone records of every American. > > “The time has come to stop it,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said. > > Opposing them were not only Mr. Obama and the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, but also the leaders of the nation’s defense and intelligence establishment. > > On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Keith Alexander, spent hours providing classified briefings to lawmakers about the program, and the White House took the unusual step of issuing a statement urging lawmakers not to approve the measure. On Wednesday, James L. Jones, the retired Marine Corps general who was Mr. Obama’s national security adviser from 2009-10, added his name to an open letter in support of preserving the N.S.A. programs that more than half a dozen top national-security officials from the Bush administration had signed. > > “Denying the N.S.A. such access to data will leave the nation at risk,” said the letter, which was circulated to undecided members. > > Mr. Rogers took a personal swipe at Mr. Amash, a darling of social media, when he said the House was not in the business of racking up “likes” on Facebook. He said the calling log program was an important tool for protecting against terrorist attacks. > > “This is not a game,” he fumed. “This is real. It will have real consequences.” > > But many rank-and-file Republicans and Democrats appeared impervious to such overtures. Representative Jared Polis, Democrat of Colorado and a supporter of the amendment, said that if the Obama administration felt strongly about defending the program, Mr. Obama would have spoken out personally. Instead, the White House released a statement under the name of the press secretary, Jay Carney. > > “The press secretary says hundreds of things every day,” Mr. Polis said. > > The divisions in Congress seemed to reflect the ambivalence in the nation. In a CBS News poll released Wednesday, 67 percent of Americans said the government’s collection of phone records was a violation of privacy. At the same time, 52 percent called it a necessary tool to help find terrorists. > > But the final tally in the House suggested the tide was shifting on the issue. In the weeks after the Snowden leaks, the united voices of Congressional leaders and administration officials in support of the N.S.A. programs seemed to squelch the outrage Mr. Snowden had hoped for. Anger seemed to be trained more on Mr. Snowden than on the programs he revealed. > > As the news media and the government chronicled Mr. Snowden’s flight from law enforcement, a web of privacy activists, libertarian conservatives and liberal civil liberties proponents rallied support behind Congressional action. House members said they received hundreds of phone calls and e-mails before Wednesday’s vote, all in favor of curtailing the N.S.A.’s authority. > > Ultimately, 94 House Republicans defied their leadership; 111 Democrats — a majority of the Democratic caucus — defied their president. > > “This is only the beginning,” Mr. Conyers vowed after the vote. The fight will shift to the Senate, where two longtime Democratic critics of N.S.A. surveillance, Mark Udall of Colorado and Ron Wyden of Oregon, immediately took up the cause. > > “National security is of paramount importance, yet the N.S.A.’s dragnet collection of Americans’ phone records violates innocent Americans’ privacy rights and should not continue as its exists today,” Mr. Udall said after the vote. “The U.S. House of Representatives’ bipartisan vote today proposal should be a wake-up call for the White House.” > > Charlie Savage contributed reporting. > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jul 25 10:15:07 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:15:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] {DMP} international surveillance (was Re: video available - Frank La Rue at New America) In-Reply-To: <20130722231048.321dda6d@quill> References: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> <20130722230323.58311e23@quill> <20130722231048.321dda6d@quill> Message-ID: <20130725161507.672047a0@quill> Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Sala wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 2013, at 3:40 AM, Carolina Rossini > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Btw, regarding surveillance of the non-US persons, are you guys > > > > planning to send comments under this request: > > > > http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001 > > > > > > > Sala: This is a fantastic idea and we really should consider > > > sending our views. > > > > I agree. > > > > Here's a first draft for what might become an IGC statement on this, > > if we can reach consensus: > > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/intsurveillance [With IGC coordinator hat on] In view of the lack of response here, while active drafting is taking place in other fora, e.g. BestBits, I'm getting close to drawing the conclusion that IGC will not submit a statement to the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). Anyone who disagrees with this conclusion should please respond by July 27 at the latest. (The deadline for submissions is August 1.) Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jul 25 14:24:13 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:24:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BIRPCoalition=5D_Domino_effect?= =?UTF-8?Q?_starts=3A_Vigilantismo=3A_Gov=2E_do_Rio_emite_Decreto_p/_solic?= =?UTF-8?Q?ita=C3=A7=C3=A3o_de_registros_telef=C3=B4nicos_e_de_Internet?= In-Reply-To: <51F0BA4B.7090201@itforchange.net> References: <51F0BA4B.7090201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130725202413.2d5a1321@quill> Parminder wrote: > I think much can come out of a focussed and sustained normative > discussion I strongly agree on the importance of organizing such a discussion. > - that can really only takes place when some kind of real > policy making is possible, even imminent - on the new issues that > face us today. I don't understand this part of the assertion. Isn't the degree to which policy making is possible and desirable part of what needs to be discussed, and shouldn't the choices that lead to such policy making being imminent or not depend on the outcome of the discussion? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jul 25 16:03:59 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:03:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] video available - Frank La Rue at New America In-Reply-To: <20130722230323.58311e23@quill> References: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> <20130722230323.58311e23@quill> Message-ID: The EFF has a statement that can be signed onto https://necessaryandproportionate.org/ On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Sala wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 2013, at 3:40 AM, Carolina Rossini > > wrote: > > > > > Btw, regarding surveillance of the non-US persons, are you guys > > > planning to send comments under this request: > > > http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001 > > > > > Sala: This is a fantastic idea and we really should consider sending > > our views. > > I agree. > > Here's a first draft for what might become an IGC statement on this, if > we can reach consensus: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/intsurveillance > > (If the IGC fails to reach consensus, I'll find another way to comment > along those lines.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jul 25 16:20:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:20:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] video available - Frank La Rue at New America In-Reply-To: References: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> <20130722230323.58311e23@quill> Message-ID: <20130725222034.01ad9b9c@quill> Am Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:03:59 -0400 schrieb Joly MacFie : > The EFF has a statement that can be signed onto > > https://necessaryandproportionate.org/ That statement however is rather weak in regard to the challenges posed by the trans-border surveillance practices of NSA and the equivalent agencies of other countries. In particular, it does not express the outrage which international civil society IMO needs to communicate to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board of the USA in view of the current situation. Greetings, Norbert > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Sala wrote: > > > > > On Jul 21, 2013, at 3:40 AM, Carolina Rossini > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Btw, regarding surveillance of the non-US persons, are you guys > > > > planning to send comments under this request: > > > > http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001 > > > > > > > Sala: This is a fantastic idea and we really should consider > > > sending our views. > > > > I agree. > > > > Here's a first draft for what might become an IGC statement on > > this, if we can reach consensus: > > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/intsurveillance > > > > (If the IGC fails to reach consensus, I'll find another way to > > comment along those lines.) > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Jul 25 17:55:56 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:55:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] video available - Frank La Rue at New America In-Reply-To: <20130725222034.01ad9b9c@quill> References: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> <20130722230323.58311e23@quill> <20130725222034.01ad9b9c@quill> Message-ID: A quick clarification: The principles Joly linked to are not an EFF submission to PCLOB, but have been in development for many months now by EFF, Access, Privacy International, and several other organizations. I think Katitza from EFF is on this list and can give more background. Best, Deborah On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Am Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:03:59 -0400 > schrieb Joly MacFie : > > > The EFF has a statement that can be signed onto > > > > https://necessaryandproportionate.org/ > > That statement however is rather weak in regard to the challenges posed > by the trans-border surveillance practices of NSA and the equivalent > agencies of other countries. > > In particular, it does not express the outrage which international civil > society IMO needs to communicate to the Privacy and Civil Liberties > Oversight Board of the USA in view of the current situation. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > Sala wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 2013, at 3:40 AM, Carolina Rossini > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Btw, regarding surveillance of the non-US persons, are you guys > > > > > planning to send comments under this request: > > > > > http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001 > > > > > > > > > Sala: This is a fantastic idea and we really should consider > > > > sending our views. > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > > Here's a first draft for what might become an IGC statement on > > > this, if we can reach consensus: > > > > > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/intsurveillance > > > > > > (If the IGC fails to reach consensus, I'll find another way to > > > comment along those lines.) > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Jul 25 20:58:21 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 20:58:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] video available - Frank La Rue at New America In-Reply-To: References: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> <20130722230323.58311e23@quill> <20130725222034.01ad9b9c@quill> Message-ID: <51F1C9AD.7090708@eff.org> Agreed with Deborah. EFF is working on its own submission to the PCLOB with all the nuances that a submission requires in a particular context (We are not recruiting signatures, it's EFF own internal submission). Our internal EFF process for submission approval is long and sometimes it could be slow because it passes through many teams within EFF, and each team has a huge amount of workload and their own timeline/schedule, and we get positions by consensus : ). My colleague, Danny O'brien, EFF International Director, is working on EFF international angle of the EFF submission to the PCLOB. The Principles are a legal toolkit based on international law, and does not use an outrage language because it seeks to use a legal language. It was developed (even before the leaks started) but was revised in light of the leaks. I believe the NSA surveillance is in violation of many of those principles, btw. Best, K. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 23:21:08 2013 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:21:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled To: Folks, This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. Use Google translate and you will be able to read. I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of US$1.05M. Regards, Peng Hwa ------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 23:31:16 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:01:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: Sad news indeed. -C On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote: > FYI > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" > Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM > Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled > To: > > Folks, > > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the > IGF. > > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at > http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. > Use Google translate and you will be able to read. > > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to the > news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised > US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of > US$1.05M. > > Regards, > Peng Hwa > > ------------------------------ > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and > may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended > recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its > content. > > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg Thu Jul 25 23:31:57 2013 From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:31:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: Thanks Ivar. I was going to send to the Internet governance caucus list. Some of you probably had heard rumours of the possibility. According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. When the group came, we discussed the possibility of not providing food at the event. We concluded that although it was done in Europe and Brazil, it would just not be right in Asia. I had been looking forward to giving pointers about Bali as well as understanding the factors behind the dotcom boom in Indonesia. Alas, it is not to be. Regards, Peng Hwa From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ivar A. M. Hartmann Sent: Friday, 26 July, 2013 11:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" > Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled To: > Folks, This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. Use Google translate and you will be able to read. I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of US$1.05M. Regards, Peng Hwa ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaeykim2 at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 23:34:02 2013 From: jaeykim2 at gmail.com (Jae Yeon KIM) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:34:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: Sad news. Although I am unable to attend the meeting due to the personal schedule, I am excited about the event a lot. Best, Jae Yeon On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: > Sad news indeed. > > -C > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < > ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote: > >> FYI >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" >> Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM >> Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled >> To: >> >> Folks, >> >> This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the >> IGF. >> >> There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at >> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. >> Use Google translate and you will be able to read. >> >> I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to the >> news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised >> US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of >> US$1.05M. >> >> Regards, >> Peng Hwa >> >> ------------------------------ >> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and >> may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended >> recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its >> content. >> >> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 23:35:49 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:05:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: I was looking to attend online, as I have some of the past such meetings. I think this would impact the prospective presenters/workshop organizers the most as they've put real hard effort into making sure their work is done and ready - the deadline for these was 18th July... The real question is - will this mean the IGF this year is cancelled, or at such short notice will another country be able to 'fill in'? -C On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Jae Yeon KIM wrote: > Sad news. Although I am unable to attend the meeting due to the personal > schedule, I am excited about the event a lot. > > Best, > Jae Yeon > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < > chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sad news indeed. >> >> -C >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < >> ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> FYI >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" >>> Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM >>> Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled >>> To: >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the >>> IGF. >>> >>> There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at >>> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. >>> Use Google translate and you will be able to read. >>> >>> I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to >>> the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised >>> US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of >>> US$1.05M. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Peng Hwa >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named >>> and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended >>> recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its >>> content. >>> >>> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From genekimmelman at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 23:37:57 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:37:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled Message-ID: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed will now weigh in to help -------- Original message -------- From: "Ivar A. M. Hartmann" Date: To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled To: Folks, This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.  Use Google translate and you will be able to read. I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of US$1.05M. Regards, Peng Hwa CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jul 25 23:39:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:09:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: <10e601ce89b1$b70ca900$2525fb00$@hserus.net> So - UN or not, let us organize a civil society event there, on a shoestring. No particular need to fly a lot of officials first class and hold it at the grandest resort in Nusa Dua. We have 1.1 million USD raised by the local team, and a very decent event - maybe not grand and five star luxury, but certainly at a very good standard - can be organized on that. And if the UN folks want to participate they can - at their cost J -suresh From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Chaitanya Dhareshwar Sent: 26 July 2013 09:06 To: Jae Yeon KIM Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Cancelled I was looking to attend online, as I have some of the past such meetings. I think this would impact the prospective presenters/workshop organizers the most as they've put real hard effort into making sure their work is done and ready - the deadline for these was 18th July... The real question is - will this mean the IGF this year is cancelled, or at such short notice will another country be able to 'fill in'? -C On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Jae Yeon KIM wrote: Sad news. Although I am unable to attend the meeting due to the personal schedule, I am excited about the event a lot. Best, Jae Yeon On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: Sad news indeed. -C On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled To: Folks, This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-i nternet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. Use Google translate and you will be able to read. I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of US$1.05M. Regards, Peng Hwa _____ CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Jul 25 23:41:34 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:11:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <10e601ce89b1$b70ca900$2525fb00$@hserus.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <10e601ce89b1$b70ca900$2525fb00$@hserus.net> Message-ID: +1 On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > So – UN or not, let us organize a civil society event there, on a > shoestring. No particular need to fly a lot of officials first class and > hold it at the grandest resort in Nusa Dua.**** > > ** ** > > We have 1.1 million USD raised by the local team, and a very decent event > – maybe not grand and five star luxury, but certainly at a very good > standard – can be organized on that.**** > > ** ** > > And if the UN folks want to participate they can – at their cost J**** > > ** ** > > -suresh**** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Chaitanya Dhareshwar > *Sent:* 26 July 2013 09:06 > *To:* Jae Yeon KIM > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF Cancelled**** > > ** ** > > I was looking to attend online, as I have some of the past such meetings. > I think this would impact the prospective presenters/workshop > organizers the most as they've put real hard effort into making sure their > work is done and ready - the deadline for these was 18th July... **** > > **** > > The real question is - will this mean the IGF this year is cancelled, or > at such short notice will another country be able to 'fill in'?**** > > **** > > -C**** > > ** ** > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Jae Yeon KIM wrote:* > *** > > Sad news. Although I am unable to attend the meeting due to the personal > schedule, I am excited about the event a lot.**** > > ** ** > > Best,**** > > Jae Yeon **** > > ** ** > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < > chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote:**** > > Sad news indeed.**** > > **** > > -C**** > > ** ** > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < > ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote:**** > > FYI**** > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" > Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM > Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled > To: > ** > ****** > > Folks,**** > > ** ** > > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. > **** > > ** ** > > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at > http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. > Use Google translate and you will be able to read.**** > > ** ** > > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to the > news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised > US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of > US$1.05M.**** > > ** ** > > Regards,**** > > Peng Hwa**** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and > may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended > recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its > content. > > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.**** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > ** ** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 25 23:44:59 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:44:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> Message-ID: <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> On 26/07/13 11:37, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed will > now weigh in to help If not, then it will really confirm the contempt with which the IGF is held as a process. There are Silicon Valley parties that have cost more than the IGF's $1.05M shortfall. Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to the remote participation experience. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jul 25 23:46:18 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:46:18 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one > major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked > for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. Time to cut the UN apron strings. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jul 25 23:47:48 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:17:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <13d801ce89b2$e662c620$b3285260$@hserus.net> VC fuelled parties that cost more than a million have usually been followed by the VC crashing and burning. And that day is long gone when startups had that kind of money to burn on parties. In any case, I never did see the government department where an additional unscheduled demand of a million dollars wasn’t met with shock. --srs From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: 26 July 2013 09:15 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Cancelled On 26/07/13 11:37, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed will now weigh in to help If not, then it will really confirm the contempt with which the IGF is held as a process. There are Silicon Valley parties that have cost more than the IGF's $1.05M shortfall. Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to the remote participation experience. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 26 00:34:59 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:04:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: >> According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one >> major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked >> for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. > > Time to cut the UN apron strings. Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run the global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that after subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public funding for policy spaces and activities, and adopting the neoliberal and anti-democratic (and fancy) multistakeholder funding model, now that it has collapsed one is to blame the public systems for it.... To repeat: this disaster occurred precisely because of cutting of the apron strings that policy space should always have tied to public funds and public systems. When Indonesian government said last year that it was unable to fund the IGF, it should not have been handed over to a private committee headed by a businessman. ... It should have been shifted to another country willing to host it.... We are participating in an absolute privatisation of governance and politics, and simply following the neolib agenda that represents the interests of the most powerful... And this is indeed sheer 'power' - that those who are responsible for a 'failure' can so conveniently blame others for it, and employ their own failure to further their cause.... And why should this be seen as a 'failure'. See it as an opportunity to completely do away with pulbic funded and pulbic systems supported public spaces... Lets go over completely to corporate funded policy spaces and policy making.... Why make these moves in such shifty cautious ways. So at least we will all know what is that we are contributing to building - what kind of society... (By the way, right now we have a full fledged experiment of this kind - corporate run policy spaces - running in India, it shows the pattern and the larger design of certain ideologies and forces, and the extent to which they have been successful.) parminder (PS: This is a general response, not just to your email, Jeremy. And please do excuse my cynical language. These anti-democratic shifts are really disturbing.) > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jul 26 00:46:30 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:46:30 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> On 26/07/13 12:34, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: >>> According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, >>> one major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently >>> asked for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the >>> event. >> >> Time to cut the UN apron strings. > > Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run > the global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that > after subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public funding > for policy spaces and activities, and adopting the neoliberal and > anti-democratic (and fancy) multistakeholder funding model, now that > it has collapsed one is to blame the public systems for it.... But $900k is ridiculous, and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from UNOG (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy direction), other options have to be considered. We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well - a free-standing international multi-stakeholder conference. This is independent of the question of how it is funded - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN anyway, so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation worse. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Fri Jul 26 00:50:37 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 05:50:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: <1374814237.69945.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> So sad news.   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Chaitanya Dhareshwar À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Ivar A. M. Hartmann Cc : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Envoyé le : Vendredi 26 juillet 2013 6h31 Objet : Re: [governance] IGF Cancelled Sad news indeed.   -C On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote: FYI >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" >Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM >Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled >To: > > >Folks, > > >This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. > > >There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.  Use Google translate and you will be able to read. > > >I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of US$1.05M. > > >Regards, >Peng Hwa >>________________________________ > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. > >Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 26 01:01:38 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:31:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <140195a74ee.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> That almost sounds like we collectively object to governments calling the tune and shutting out other stakeholders from anything but a consultative role but we still expect them to put up money for an event that advocates multistakeholderism How have previous igfs been funded by the way, exclusively from a ministry budget? --srs (htc one x) On 26 July 2013 10:04:59 AM parminder wrote: > > On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > >> According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one > major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked for > US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. > > > > Time to cut the UN apron strings. > > Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run the > global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that after > subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public funding for policy > spaces and activities, and adopting the neoliberal and anti-democratic (and > fancy) multistakeholder funding model, now that it has collapsed one is to > blame the public systems for it.... > > To repeat: this disaster occurred precisely because of cutting of the apron > strings that policy space should always have tied to public funds and > public systems. When Indonesian government said last year that it was > unable to fund the IGF, it should not have been handed over to a private > committee headed by a businessman. ... It should have been shifted to > another country willing to host it.... We are participating in an absolute > privatisation of governance and politics, and simply following the neolib > agenda that represents the interests of the most powerful... > > And this is indeed sheer 'power' - that those who are responsible for a > 'failure' can so conveniently blame others for it, and employ their own > failure to further their cause.... > > And why should this be seen as a 'failure'. See it as an opportunity to > completely do away with pulbic funded and pulbic systems supported public > spaces... Lets go over completely to corporate funded policy spaces and > policy making.... Why make these moves in such shifty cautious ways. So at > least we will all know what is that we are contributing to building - what > kind of society... > > (By the way, right now we have a full fledged experiment of this kind - > corporate run policy spaces - running in India, it shows the pattern and > the larger design of certain ideologies and forces, and the extent to which > they have been successful.) > > parminder > > (PS: This is a general response, not just to your email, Jeremy. And please > do excuse my cynical language. These anti-democratic shifts are really > disturbing.) > > > > -- > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Policy Officer > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't print > this email unless necessary. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 01:02:24 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:32:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I would most definitely support this. How IGF raises the funds is a different matter, but it would instantly make the IGF truly "IGF". -C On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > why not the IGF as well - a free-standing international multi-stakeholder > conference -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 26 01:04:19 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: <1374815059.73964.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Prof Ang Pen Hwa, Thank you for sharing important information.  By the way, it was first time when Budget Projection (proposed budget and funding detail) to organize IGF was published well before the event. As you mentioned the reason of constraint of enough budget, most of the caucus members would be interested in detail a PDF File is available to download http://igf2013.or.id/about-igf-2013/   We are missing an opportunity for the enhanced cooperation, interaction and sharing common problems and related information.  However, I guess that upcoming APrIGF-2013 at Seoul will become more attractive for the IGF's prospective participants and speakers of AP region. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; "governance at lists.cpsr.org" >Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 8:31 >Subject: RE: [governance] IGF Cancelled > > > >Thanks Ivar. I was going to send to the Internet governance caucus list. >  >Some of you probably had heard rumours of the possibility. >  >According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. >  >When the group came, we discussed the possibility of not providing food at the event. We concluded that although it was done in Europe and Brazil, it would just not be right in Asia. >  >I had been looking forward to giving pointers about Bali as well as understanding the factors behind the dotcom boom in Indonesia. Alas, it is not to be. >  >Regards, >Peng Hwa >  >From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ivar A. M. Hartmann >Sent: Friday, 26 July, 2013 11:21 AM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled >  >FYI >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" >Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM >Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled >To: > > >Folks, >  >This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. >  >There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.  Use Google translate and you will be able to read. >  >I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of US$1.05M. >  >Regards, >Peng Hwa >  > >________________________________ > >CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. > >Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 26 01:06:03 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:36:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> On Friday 26 July 2013 10:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26/07/13 12:34, parminder wrote: >> >> On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: >>>> According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, >>>> one major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently >>>> asked for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the >>>> event. >>> >>> Time to cut the UN apron strings. >> >> Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run >> the global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that >> after subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public >> funding for policy spaces and activities, and adopting the neoliberal >> and anti-democratic (and fancy) multistakeholder funding model, now >> that it has collapsed one is to blame the public systems for it.... > > But $900k is ridiculous, Yes, we consider looking at local security detail etc.... but we in developing countries are quite aware of how whispers of inefficiency, corruption etc are used deviously to discredit public systems, which is not to say that they should not be improved, and internal efficiencies cannot be sought... Lets get down to seeing how this figure of $900, if it is true, - and I know the power of rightfully placed rumours - can be brought down. That is a different talk... > and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from UNOG > (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy direction), > other options have to be considered. Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a point one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the 'multistakeholders' that were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF during the proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what censorship are you talking about..... and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid person....... > We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are > notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a limit to which the multistakeholder front for corporate control can be employed) > - a free-standing international multi-stakeholder conference. This is > independent of the question of how it is funded Sorry to say, that it must take extreme political naivete - and I know you arent politically naive - to say that what a policy space is and does is "independent of the the question of how it is funded".... There is lots of lots of literature, norms as well as legal frameworks with regard to democratic political systems that deal with precisely this connection.... and this connection is universally seen as very strong and important to always be mindful of. > - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN anyway, give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of funds, dont allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN funding for the IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to be any flow of funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. > so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation worse. If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy spaces will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much about it... parminder > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 01:11:03 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:41:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: So while we work out avenues for the future, as SR suggested maybe we can have something out of the remaining 1.1 mil that is currently available. Can someone from the organizing committee address this (I'm guessing some/most of them will be on this list)? Thanks, C On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:36 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 26 July 2013 10:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 26/07/13 12:34, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > > According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one > major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked for > US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. **** > > > Time to cut the UN apron strings. > > > Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run the > global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that after > subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public funding for policy > spaces and activities, and adopting the neoliberal and anti-democratic (and > fancy) multistakeholder funding model, now that it has collapsed one is to > blame the public systems for it.... > > > But $900k is ridiculous, > > > Yes, we consider looking at local security detail etc.... but we in > developing countries are quite aware of how whispers of inefficiency, > corruption etc are used deviously to discredit public systems, which is not > to say that they should not be improved, and internal efficiencies cannot > be sought... Lets get down to seeing how this figure of $900, if it is > true, - and I know the power of rightfully placed rumours - can be brought > down. That is a different talk... > > > and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from UNOG > (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy direction), other > options have to be considered. > > > Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a point one > cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the 'multistakeholders' that > were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF during the > proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what censorship are you > talking about..... and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, > which secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid > person....... > > We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are > notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well > > > No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it remains > a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a limit to which the > multistakeholder front for corporate control can be employed) > > > - a free-standing international multi-stakeholder conference. This is > independent of the question of how it is funded > > > Sorry to say, that it must take extreme political naivete - and I know you > arent politically naive - to say that what a policy space is and does is > "independent of the the question of how it is funded".... There is lots of > lots of literature, norms as well as legal frameworks with regard to > democratic political systems that deal with precisely this connection.... > and this connection is universally seen as very strong and important to > always be mindful of. > > - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN anyway, > > > give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of funds, dont > allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN funding for the IGF > and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to be any flow of > funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. > > > > so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation worse. > > > If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy spaces > will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much about > it... > > parminder > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Fri Jul 26 01:11:23 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:11:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: There is a standard fee that is part of convening any UN meeting to cover the costs of UN staff organising it, as well as those things. Cutting the UN connection is, to my way of thinking, an incredibly bad idea on pretty much every level - without the IGF the UN has no standing meeting to discuss Internet governance per se. This would create a vacuum and that vacuum would be filled - and if any of you think it would be filled with a more or even equally multi-stakeholder forum, there's a proverbial bridge in Brooklyn you may wish to buy; contact me offlist to make arrangements to take possession and transfer funds ;) parminder wrote: > >On Friday 26 July 2013 10:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 26/07/13 12:34, parminder wrote: >>> >>> On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: >>>>> According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, >>>>> one major item that added to the cost is that the UN had >apparently >>>>> asked for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the >>>>> event. >>>> >>>> Time to cut the UN apron strings. >>> >>> Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run >>> the global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that >>> after subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public >>> funding for policy spaces and activities, and adopting the >neoliberal >>> and anti-democratic (and fancy) multistakeholder funding model, now >>> that it has collapsed one is to blame the public systems for it.... >> >> But $900k is ridiculous, > >Yes, we consider looking at local security detail etc.... but we in >developing countries are quite aware of how whispers of inefficiency, >corruption etc are used deviously to discredit public systems, which is > >not to say that they should not be improved, and internal efficiencies >cannot be sought... Lets get down to seeing how this figure of $900, if > >it is true, - and I know the power of rightfully placed rumours - can >be >brought down. That is a different talk... > >> and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from UNOG > >> (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy direction), >> other options have to be considered. > >Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a point >one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the 'multistakeholders' >that were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF during >the proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what censorship are > >you talking about..... and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led >policy, which secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid >person....... > >> We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are >> notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well > >No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it >remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a limit >to >which the multistakeholder front for corporate control can be employed) > >> - a free-standing international multi-stakeholder conference. This >is >> independent of the question of how it is funded > >Sorry to say, that it must take extreme political naivete - and I know >you arent politically naive - to say that what a policy space is and >does is "independent of the the question of how it is funded".... There > >is lots of lots of literature, norms as well as legal frameworks with >regard to democratic political systems that deal with precisely this >connection.... and this connection is universally seen as very strong >and important to always be mindful of. > >> - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN anyway, > > >give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of funds, >dont >allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN funding for the > >IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to be any flow >of >funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. > > >> so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation >worse. > >If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy spaces >will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much >about >it... > >parminder > >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >knowledge >> hub | >http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 01:20:59 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:20:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sad news, time for ig community to find sustainable solution with stakeholder to have igf annual event. The budgets needs to be revisited due to high cost. On Friday, July 26, 2013, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 26 July 2013 10:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 26/07/13 12:34, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > > According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one > major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked for > US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. **** > > > Time to cut the UN apron strings. > > > Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run the > global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that after > subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public funding for policy > spaces and activities, and adopting the neoliberal and anti-democratic (and > fancy) multistakeholder funding model, now that it has collapsed one is to > blame the public systems for it.... > > > But $900k is ridiculous, > > > Yes, we consider looking at local security detail etc.... but we in > developing countries are quite aware of how whispers of inefficiency, > corruption etc are used deviously to discredit public systems, which is not > to say that they should not be improved, and internal efficiencies cannot > be sought... Lets get down to seeing how this figure of $900, if it is > true, - and I know the power of rightfully placed rumours - can be brought > down. That is a different talk... > > and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from UNOG > (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy direction), other > options have to be considered. > > > Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a point one > cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the 'multistakeholders' that > were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF during the > proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what censorship are you > talking about..... and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, > which secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid > person....... > > We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are > notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well > > > No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it remains > a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a limit to which the > multistakeholder front for corporate control can be employed) > > - a free-standing international multi-stakeholder conference. This is > independent of the question of how it is funded > > > Sorry to say, that it must take extreme political naivete - and I know you > arent politically naive - to say that what a policy space is and does is > "independent of the the question of how it is funded".... There is lots of > lots of literature, norms as well as legal frameworks with regard to > democratic political systems that deal with precisely this connection.... > and this connection is universally seen as very strong and important to > always be mindful of. > > - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN anyway, > > > give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of funds, dont > allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN funding for the IGF > and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to be any flow of > funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. > > > so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation worse. > > > If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy spaces > will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much about > it... > > parminder > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > -- Sent from iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jul 26 01:23:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:53:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F207BB.70600@itforchange.net> On Friday 26 July 2013 10:41 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > There is a standard fee that is part of convening any UN meeting to > cover the costs of UN staff organising it, as well as those things. we should fight for efficiencies in this regard... there are ways to do it. > > Cutting the UN connection is, to my way of thinking, an incredibly bad > idea on pretty much every level - without the IGF the UN has no > standing meeting to discuss Internet governance per se. This would > create a vacuum and that vacuum would be filled - and if any of you > think it would be filled with a more or even equally multi-stakeholder > forum, there's a proverbial bridge in Brooklyn you may wish to buy; > contact me offlist to make arrangements to take possession and > transfer funds ;) Nick, I was impressed by the start you made of declaring that the idea to cut the UN connection of the IGF was a bad one..... But then I realised that you have a negative rather than a positive case for a UN based IGF... Not to see and value the IGF for what it does, but for what it prevents from happening.... I know a lot of people see the IGF primarily as such a thing, and this is so so disappointing.... I have sat with a lot of people who just drop in at MAG meetings, and sitting through a day wonder what the hell is going on here.... and I give them the same response - mostly in confidence - the problem is, I tell them, that most/ many people here are not interested in seeing what the IGF can do, they are interested in propping the IG to prevent 'other things' from happening.... which is why there is so less prositive energy, drive and motivation in the proceedings. parminder > > parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 26 July 2013 10:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 26/07/13 12:34, parminder wrote: >>> >>> On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: >>>>> According to third party sources I asked, ie not the >>>>> Indonesians, one major item that added to the cost is that the >>>>> UN had apparently asked for US$900k to fly personnel and >>>>> security equipment for the event. >>>> >>>> Time to cut the UN apron strings. >>> >>> Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to >>> run the global internet policy dialogue.... It is most >>> astounding that after subverting and ditching the tradition of >>> strictly public funding for policy spaces and activities, and >>> adopting the neoliberal and anti-democratic (and fancy) >>> multistakeholder funding model, now that it has collapsed one is >>> to blame the public systems for it.... >> >> But $900k is ridiculous, > > Yes, we consider looking at local security detail etc.... but we > in developing countries are quite aware of how whispers of > inefficiency, corruption etc are used deviously to discredit > public systems, which is not to say that they should not be > improved, and internal efficiencies cannot be sought... Lets get > down to seeing how this figure of $900, if it is true, - and I > know the power of rightfully placed rumours - can be brought down. > That is a different talk... > >> and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from >> UNOG (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy >> direction), other options have to be considered. > > Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a > point one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the > 'multistakeholders' that were strictly against UN based stable > funding for the IGF during the proceedings of the WG on IGF > improvements , and what censorship are you talking about..... and > dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which > secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid > person....... > >> We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are >> notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well > > No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it > remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a > limit to which the multistakeholder front for corporate control > can be employed) > >> - a free-standing international multi-stakeholder conference. >> This is independent of the question of how it is funded > > Sorry to say, that it must take extreme political naivete - and I > know you arent politically naive - to say that what a policy space > is and does is "independent of the the question of how it is > funded".... There is lots of lots of literature, norms as well as > legal frameworks with regard to democratic political systems that > deal with precisely this connection.... and this connection is > universally seen as very strong and important to always be mindful > of. > >> - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN >> anyway, > > give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of > funds, dont allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on > UN funding for the IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway > isnt going to be any flow of funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. > > >> so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation >> worse. > > If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy > spaces will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot > do much about it... > > parminder > >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub | >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Fri Jul 26 01:43:46 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 01:43:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Kenya Internet Governance Forum 2013 Message-ID: This is just about to begin as Nairobi is 3 hours ahead of UTC. We have a nice clear signal on the webcast. Sure to be in people's minds is the Kenya Government's recently announced National Broadband Strategy. Likely to be a side topic is the news that has just come inthat the Indonesian Government has announced a decision to cancel the forthcoming IGF in Bali for lack of funds. ** joly posted: "Today, July 26 2013 the 4th Kenya Internet Governance Forum ( will take place in Nairobi. The Kenya Internet Governance Forum (KIGF) provides stakeholders drawn from the Government, Private Sector, Civil Society, Academia and the Internet Community with a" [image: Kenya IGF 2013] Today, July 26 2013 the 4th Kenya Internet Governance Forum ( will take place in Nairobi. The Kenya Internet Governance Forum (KIGF) provides stakeholders drawn from the Government, Private Sector, Civil Society, Academia and the Internet Community with an opportunity to increase their understanding of ICT and Internet Governance issues that are pertinent to the country. By correlating these issues with socio-economic, political, culture and development will strengthen the Internet Governance community of practice evolving in the East African region. Remote participation is available via webex, and the event will be webcast live the Internet Society Chapters webcast channel . *What*: Kenya Internet Governance Forum 2013 *Where*: Strathmore University Business School, Nairobi Kenya *When*: July 26 2013 8am-5pm EAT | 0500-1400 UTC | 0100-1000 EDT *Agenda*: http://www.kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/about-kigf/kigf-programme *Webcast*: http://www.livestream.com/internetsocietychapters *Webex*: web link| Phone bridge: Call in numbers- code 923 121 613 *Twitter*: #kigf13 Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5822 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jul 26 01:59:32 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:59:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F21044.20809@ciroap.org> On 26/07/13 13:06, parminder wrote: > >> and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from UNOG >> (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy direction), >> other options have to be considered. > > Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a point > one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the 'multistakeholders' > that were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF during > the proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what censorship > are you talking about... The seized postcards and posters, the unwritten rules about what you can say about whom, etc. > .. and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which > secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid person....... Yes, what a farce. But long before that, Nitin and Markus had shaped the IGF into the image they had in mind for it all along, and it was very easy for them in that position of power to ignore the submissions about the IGF's structure and processes that didn't conform to that vision. >> We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are >> notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well > > No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it > remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a limit > to which the multistakeholder front for corporate control can be employed) Just also to note that I'm not humming a new tune here in suggesting that the IGF eventually cast off the UN. Five years ago I wrote that "a thin link between [the IGF] and the existing international system [is justified] at least until the network builds up sufficient social capital across all stakeholder groups to,break free and become fully autonomous." On the other hand I also take your point that when we try to reinvent intergovernmentalism we tend to do it badly. The GAC is one case in point, the WTO another (and its love child, the TPP, worse still). But one can draw strong parallels between the case for ICANN shedding its links to the US government and the IGF breaking free of its roots in the United Nations. >> - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN anyway, > > give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of funds, > dont allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN funding > for the IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to be > any flow of funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. Fair criticism. >> so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation worse. > > If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy spaces > will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much > about it... No I do see that, and I would support any change that would turn the IGF into a corporate controlled policy space. But I don't think much of the way the UN has handled it either. If the mandate is not renewed by the General Assembly next time, we'll have to reconsider this then. So this seemed like another apposite opportunity. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Fri Jul 26 02:08:32 2013 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:08:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled Message-ID: <1374818912.6490.BPMail_high_carrier@web28906.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> so sad. Need solutions ------------------------------ On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 7:02 AM CEST Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >I would most definitely support this. How IGF raises the funds is a >different matter, but it would instantly make the IGF truly "IGF". > >-C >On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> why not the IGF as well - a free-standing international multi-stakeholder >> conference -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jul 26 02:33:11 2013 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 07:33:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: Wow.Sad news, no way to postpone and continue looking for funds ? From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ivar A. M. Hartmann Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" > Date: Jul 26, 2013 12:04 AM Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] IGF Cancelled To: > Folks, This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-i nternet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. Use Google translate and you will be able to read. I had met the civil society organizers just this week. According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of US$1.05M. Regards, Peng Hwa _____ CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Jul 26 03:28:40 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:28:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F21044.20809@ciroap.org> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> <51F21044.20809@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51F22528.7030804@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all No formal notification has yet been sent by the Indonesian government, as Donny has pointed out. This was also confirmed to me by the Secretariat yesterday. Let's wait until it is official before assuming that the IGF in Bali is cancelled. On de-linking the IGF from the UN... I agree with Parminder and Nick. It would be a substantial blow to efforts to create more inclusive international governance processes. It would reinforce efforts to make an existing intergovernmental body like the ITU (which has a narrower more technocratic focus, and which is only just beginning to recognise the need for being more inclusive) responsible for being the UN-based space to deal with internet policy. It would undermine efforts of UN-bodies like UNESCO and the CSTD who are trying to be more inclusive. It would also make it MUCH harder to get meaningful developing country participation in internet policy. Perhaps a new forum can be rebuilt somewhere else, with some other funding. Yes, one could do that and find ways of involving civil society. Technical community, developers, standard setters and business people will come along, and so will a few governments who a) have the resources and b) are not fully committed to international governance. But most governments from the developing world are not likely to participate effectively. More over, ground gained at regional and national levels could also be lost. Is our longer term project not to achieve more democracy and social justice in ALL global governance? I have always believed (naively perhaps) that the IGF has been, and could be, a significant milestone on this path. The IGF still has to improve, substantially. At times this feels hard to achieve considering the lack of resources and capacity. The UN system has to be challenged and perhaps this threat of the IGF being cancelled should really galvanise us to look at the model and the relationships. But at this point in time I feel the loss would be huge. Anriette On 26/07/2013 07:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26/07/13 13:06, parminder wrote: >> >>> and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from UNOG >>> (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy direction), >>> other options have to be considered. >> >> Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a point >> one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the 'multistakeholders' >> that were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF during >> the proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what censorship >> are you talking about... > > The seized postcards and posters, the unwritten rules about what you can > say about whom, etc. > >> .. and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which >> secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid person....... > > Yes, what a farce. But long before that, Nitin and Markus had shaped > the IGF into the image they had in mind for it all along, and it was > very easy for them in that position of power to ignore the submissions > about the IGF's structure and processes that didn't conform to that vision. > >>> We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are >>> notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well >> >> No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it >> remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a limit >> to which the multistakeholder front for corporate control can be employed) > > Just also to note that I'm not humming a new tune here in suggesting > that the IGF eventually cast off the UN. Five years ago I wrote that "a > thin link between [the IGF] and the existing international system [is > justified] at least until the network builds up sufficient social > capital across all stakeholder groups to,break free and become fully > autonomous." > > On the other hand I also take your point that when we try to reinvent > intergovernmentalism we tend to do it badly. The GAC is one case in > point, the WTO another (and its love child, the TPP, worse still). > > But one can draw strong parallels between the case for ICANN shedding > its links to the US government and the IGF breaking free of its roots in > the United Nations. > >>> - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN anyway, >> >> give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of funds, >> dont allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN funding >> for the IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to be >> any flow of funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. > > Fair criticism. > >>> so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation worse. >> >> If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy spaces >> will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much >> about it... > > No I do see that, and I would support any change that would turn the IGF > into a corporate controlled policy space. But I don't think much of the > way the UN has handled it either. If the mandate is not renewed by the > General Assembly next time, we'll have to reconsider this then. So this > seemed like another apposite opportunity. > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8iUnAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewxNYIAOABClttEss+tdwTJ5xk+r/Y 3/tJFOf8ShXNlozE2069kJXwICSlqShJ0xFZutaueZhzSgbOQ1lo0K98tQ3gDwPY zRhf8w3itEqso8TzG6oYXNV4YvSzNYlpVPfPD0hmvKN/XCAo08TP2aTYSvxP7slh KRnn3S0cIfp5p8oFY8oanmRuhzqEzvAbdOlF6eTYE/jam9MuuNC5ST2U71aUbiPX G2s86cwoyM331X90mmYseYfOxgLttrDQskp9inSRH/xoMmFM7NUE0OlDwc3cHCMu Z0jEODPFDQ+UM2m0/hySBdie/APcuyRSFGHOCqQoorPdSsRaigPceJVkjVR3Osw= =4rMD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Fri Jul 26 03:28:52 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 03:28:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: WEBCAST TODAY: Kenya Internet Governance Forum 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The webex link has changed, it is now http://bit.ly/kigf13webex On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > This is just about to begin as Nairobi is 3 hours ahead of UTC. We have a > nice clear signal on the webcast. Sure to be in people's minds is the Kenya > Government's recently announced National Broadband Strategy. > Likely to be a side topic is the news that has just come inthat the Indonesian Government has announced a decision to cancel the > forthcoming IGF in Bali for lack of funds. > > ** > joly posted: "Today, July 26 2013 the 4th Kenya Internet Governance > Forum ( will take place in Nairobi. The Kenya Internet Governance Forum > (KIGF) provides stakeholders drawn from the Government, Private Sector, > Civil Society, Academia and the Internet Community with a" > > [image: Kenya IGF 2013] Today, July 26 2013 > the 4th Kenya Internet Governance Forum ( > will take place in Nairobi. The Kenya Internet Governance Forum (KIGF) > provides stakeholders drawn from the Government, Private Sector, Civil > Society, Academia and the Internet Community with an opportunity to > increase their understanding of ICT and Internet Governance issues that are > pertinent to the country. By correlating these issues with socio-economic, > political, culture and development will strengthen the Internet Governance > community of practice evolving in the East African region. Remote > participation is available via webex, and the event will be webcast live > the Internet Society Chapters webcast channel . > > *What*: Kenya Internet Governance Forum 2013 > *Where*: Strathmore University Business School, Nairobi Kenya > *When*: July 26 2013 8am-5pm EAT | 0500-1400 UTC | 0100-1000 EDT > *Agenda*: http://www.kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/about-kigf/kigf-programme > *Webcast*: http://www.livestream.com/internetsocietychapters > *Webex*: web link| Phone bridge: Call > in numbers- code 923 121 613 > *Twitter*: #kigf13 > > Comment See all comments > > > *Permalink* > http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5822 > > > > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jul 26 03:37:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:07:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F22528.7030804@apc.org> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> <51F21044.20809@ciroap.org> <51F22528.7030804@apc.org> Message-ID: <004a01ce89d2$ee4e2800$caea7800$@hserus.net> Thanks, Anriette My original suggestion was to use this currently identified funding for a separate civil society and multistakeholder driven event. The IGF will come back later this year or the next, whenever a country agrees to host it. However, in the interest of avoiding such an ugly situation there must be a formal RFP process with indicative cost heads that countries / local groups willing to host an IGF must be aware of. Not like now, where it is more like someone offering to buy the next round of drinks for his friends at the local pub, and then discovers that they all ordered 16 year old single malts. srs > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: 26 July 2013 12:59 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Cancelled > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all > > No formal notification has yet been sent by the Indonesian government, as > Donny has pointed out. This was also confirmed to me by the Secretariat > yesterday. > > Let's wait until it is official before assuming that the IGF in Bali is > cancelled. > > On de-linking the IGF from the UN... I agree with Parminder and Nick. > It would be a substantial blow to efforts to create more inclusive > international governance processes. It would reinforce efforts to make an > existing intergovernmental body like the ITU (which has a narrower more > technocratic focus, and which is only just beginning to recognise the need > for being more inclusive) responsible for being the UN-based space to deal > with internet policy. It would undermine efforts of UN-bodies like UNESCO and > the CSTD who are trying to be more inclusive. > > It would also make it MUCH harder to get meaningful developing country > participation in internet policy. > > Perhaps a new forum can be rebuilt somewhere else, with some other funding. > Yes, one could do that and find ways of involving civil society. Technical > community, developers, standard setters and business people will come along, > and so will a few governments who a) have the resources and b) are not fully > committed to international governance. > But most governments from the developing world are not likely to participate > effectively. > > More over, ground gained at regional and national levels could also be lost. > Is our longer term project not to achieve more democracy and social justice > in ALL global governance? I have always believed (naively > perhaps) that the IGF has been, and could be, a significant milestone on this > path. > > The IGF still has to improve, substantially. At times this feels hard to > achieve considering the lack of resources and capacity. The UN system has to > be challenged and perhaps this threat of the IGF being cancelled should > really galvanise us to look at the model and the relationships. > > But at this point in time I feel the loss would be huge. > > Anriette > > > > On 26/07/2013 07:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 26/07/13 13:06, parminder wrote: > >> > >>> and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from > >>> UNOG (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy > >>> direction), other options have to be considered. > >> > >> Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a > >> point one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the > 'multistakeholders' > >> that were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF during > >> the proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what censorship > >> are you talking about... > > > > The seized postcards and posters, the unwritten rules about what you > > can say about whom, etc. > > > >> .. and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which > >> secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid person....... > > > > Yes, what a farce. But long before that, Nitin and Markus had shaped > > the IGF into the image they had in mind for it all along, and it was > > very easy for them in that position of power to ignore the submissions > > about the IGF's structure and processes that didn't conform to that > vision. > > > >>> We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are > >>> notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well > >> > >> No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it > >> remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a limit > >> to which the multistakeholder front for corporate control can be > employed) > > > > Just also to note that I'm not humming a new tune here in suggesting > > that the IGF eventually cast off the UN. Five years ago I wrote that > > "a thin link between [the IGF] and the existing international system > > [is justified] at least until the network builds up sufficient social > > capital across all stakeholder groups to,break free and become fully > > autonomous." > > > > On the other hand I also take your point that when we try to reinvent > > intergovernmentalism we tend to do it badly. The GAC is one case in > > point, the WTO another (and its love child, the TPP, worse still). > > > > But one can draw strong parallels between the case for ICANN shedding > > its links to the US government and the IGF breaking free of its roots > > in the United Nations. > > > >>> - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN > >>> anyway, > >> > >> give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of funds, > >> dont allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN funding > >> for the IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to be > >> any flow of funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. > > > > Fair criticism. > > > >>> so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation worse. > >> > >> If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy > >> spaces will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do > >> much about it... > > > > No I do see that, and I would support any change that would turn the > > IGF into a corporate controlled policy space. But I don't think much > > of the way the UN has handled it either. If the mandate is not > > renewed by the General Assembly next time, we'll have to reconsider > > this then. So this seemed like another apposite opportunity. > > > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 -----BEGIN PGP > SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8iUnAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewxNYIAOABClttEss+tdwTJ5xk+r/Y > 3/tJFOf8ShXNlozE2069kJXwICSlqShJ0xFZutaueZhzSgbOQ1lo0K98tQ3gDwPY > zRhf8w3itEqso8TzG6oYXNV4YvSzNYlpVPfPD0hmvKN/XCAo08TP2aTYSvxP7slh > KRnn3S0cIfp5p8oFY8oanmRuhzqEzvAbdOlF6eTYE/jam9MuuNC5ST2U71aUbiPX > G2s86cwoyM331X90mmYseYfOxgLttrDQskp9inSRH/xoMmFM7NUE0OlDwc3cHCMu > Z0jEODPFDQ+UM2m0/hySBdie/APcuyRSFGHOCqQoorPdSsRaigPceJVkjVR3Osw= > =4rMD > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Jul 26 03:49:11 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:49:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Rumors about IGF Bali References: <89AD9AA8-DBF5-46A5-9D2D-7F6DB89AAA7D@unog.ch> Message-ID: <90653868-60D0-4A97-A565-179A7C9C1849@uzh.ch> Begin forwarded message: > From: Chengetai Masango > Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Rumors about IGF Bali > Date: July 26, 2013 9:43:36 AM GMT+02:00 > To: Vladimir Radunovic > Cc: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > > Dear Vlada, > > > While as a general policy I do not like commenting on rumours, I am very aware that there have been some rumours flying around that the IGF in Bali has been cancelled. > > However, neither the IGF Secretariat nor UNDESA in New York have received any official notification of such. We are in contact with the Indonesian authorities discussing all the aspects related to hosting 2013, and we will let you know as soon as any significant development occurs. > > > Best regards, > > Chengetai > > > > > On 23 Jul, 2013, at 9:03 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> During ICANN Durban, there were rumors (also via Twitter from some of the >> "IGFians") that the IGF Bali will be cancelled due to impasse in budget >> negotiations. I was approached by number of colleagues from our community >> who were worried if they should go ahead with buying the tickets (to benefit >> from early rates) or not, as they have heard the same rumors. >> >> Since there were no updates from the IGF Sec and on this list about such an >> unfortunate option, I assume those were just the rumors and we should not >> worry. Markus, Chengetai, others involved in these negotiations on budget - >> can you please confirm and update us? >> >> Thank you! >> >> Best, >> >> Vlada >> >> >> >> >> *** >> Upcoming online courses at Diplo: >> Master in Contemporary Diplomacy (with Internet Governance option) l >> Humanitarian Diplomacy l Capacity Development l Multilateral Diplomacy l >> Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources l >> Complete Catalogue of Online Courses: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses >> *** >> >> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ >> >> Vladimir Radunovic >> Internet Governance and E-diplomacy >> DiploFoundation >> email: vladar at diplomacy.edu >> web: www.diplomacy.edu >> twitter: @vradunovic >> >> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Igfmaglist mailing list >> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jul 26 03:51:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:51:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] necessaryandproportionate.org (was Re: video available - Frank La Rue at New America...) In-Reply-To: <51F1C9AD.7090708@eff.org> References: <20130720212123.31d9ff35@quill> <20130722230323.58311e23@quill> <20130725222034.01ad9b9c@quill> <51F1C9AD.7090708@eff.org> Message-ID: <20130726095144.4196ad78@quill> Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > The Principles are a legal toolkit based on international law, and > does not use an outrage language because it seeks to use a legal > language. It was developed (even before the leaks started) but was > revised in light of the leaks. Is there a possibility to revise it further? I'm not saying that the document must use “outrage language”, but IMO it needs to directly address the main cause of international outrage, which is the US government's current blatant and near-total disrespect for the human rights of non-US persons, together with the fact that other countries are doing the same or at least considering legislation that is based on similar thinking. If that kind of thinking prevails, there will soon be no privacy left anywhere in the world, since everyone is a foreigner from the perspective of almost every country. > I believe the NSA surveillance is in violation of many of those > principles, btw. The main problem is IMO that most of the text of that “principles” document will be read as being only applicable in regard to surveillance within a country or based on an agreement among the affected countries. If the NSA were to fix their practices with regard to persons in the US in accordance to those principles, the problem of violating the human rights of people outside the US will still be totally unaddressed. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Fri Jul 26 04:54:55 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:54:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: WEBCAST TODAY: Kenya Internet Governance Forum 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The IGF postponement is still being treated as a rumor. Lets wait for official communication from IGF secretariat. -- *From: *Chengetai Masango *Subject: **Re: [IGFmaglist] Rumors about IGF Bali* *Date: *July 26, 2013 9:43:36 AM GMT+02:00 *To: *Vladimir Radunovic *Cc: *Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org Dear Vlada, While as a general policy I do not like commenting on rumours, I am very aware that there have been some rumours flying around that the IGF in Bali has been cancelled. However, neither the IGF Secretariat nor UNDESA in New York have received any official notification of such. We are in contact with the Indonesian authorities discussing all the aspects related to hosting 2013, and we will let you know as soon as any significant development occurs. Best regards, Chengetai ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 26 July 2013 10:28, Joly MacFie wrote: > The webex link has changed, it is now http://bit.ly/kigf13webex > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > >> >> This is just about to begin as Nairobi is 3 hours ahead of UTC. We have a >> nice clear signal on the webcast. Sure to be in people's minds is the Kenya >> Government's recently announced National Broadband Strategy. >> Likely to be a side topic is the news that has just come inthat the Indonesian Government has announced a decision to cancel the >> forthcoming IGF in Bali for lack of funds. >> >> ** >> joly posted: "Today, July 26 2013 the 4th Kenya Internet Governance >> Forum ( will take place in Nairobi. The Kenya Internet Governance Forum >> (KIGF) provides stakeholders drawn from the Government, Private Sector, >> Civil Society, Academia and the Internet Community with a" >> >> [image: Kenya IGF 2013] Today, July 26 >> 2013 the 4th Kenya Internet Governance Forum ( will take place in Nairobi. The Kenya Internet Governance Forum (KIGF) >> provides stakeholders drawn from the Government, Private Sector, Civil >> Society, Academia and the Internet Community with an opportunity to >> increase their understanding of ICT and Internet Governance issues that are >> pertinent to the country. By correlating these issues with socio-economic, >> political, culture and development will strengthen the Internet Governance >> community of practice evolving in the East African region. Remote >> participation is available via webex, and the event will be webcast live >> the Internet Society Chapters webcast channel . >> >> *What*: Kenya Internet Governance Forum 2013 >> *Where*: Strathmore University Business School, Nairobi Kenya >> *When*: July 26 2013 8am-5pm EAT | 0500-1400 UTC | 0100-1000 EDT >> *Agenda*: http://www.kenyaigf.or.ke/index.php/about-kigf/kigf-programme >> *Webcast*: http://www.livestream.com/internetsocietychapters >> *Webex*: web link| Phone bridge: Call >> in numbers- code 923 121 613 >> *Twitter*: #kigf13 >> >> Comment See all comments >> >> >> *Permalink* >> http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5822 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 26 04:57:12 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:57:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> Message-ID: <20130726105712.49b59603@quill> Ang Peng Hwa wrote: > According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one > major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked > for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. It will be rather disastrous not only for the IGF as an institution, but also for Indonesia as a host country for international conferences, and also for the UN from a PR perspective, if this is the end of the story: Canceling the IGF for reasons of a budget shortfall which is just a little larger than the ridiculously high amount that the UN is asking for to fly in personnel and security equipment for the event. I'm sure that a lot of people are right now thinking very hard about what can be done to avert that disaster. Let's not give up hope for now. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jul 26 05:02:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:32:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <20130726105712.49b59603@quill> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <20130726105712.49b59603@quill> Message-ID: <007801ce89de$df326550$9d972ff0$@hserus.net> I suppose the past terrorist incidents in Bali would have led to some sort of classification in the UN system where a much higher level of security arrangement is called for. The number of UN bureaucrats attending the event aren't likely to change substantially from previous IGFs. So the one other possibility is that the security requirements were ratcheted up and more sophisticated technology, extra personnel etc would cost that much more. Wild guessing of course, so might as well wait till Chengetai confirms whether this is being canceled or it is just a rumor. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow > Sent: 26 July 2013 14:27 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Cancelled > > Ang Peng Hwa wrote: > > > According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one > > major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked > > for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. > > It will be rather disastrous not only for the IGF as an institution, but also > for Indonesia as a host country for international conferences, and also for > the UN from a PR perspective, if this is the end of the > story: Canceling the IGF for reasons of a budget shortfall which is just a > little larger than the ridiculously high amount that the UN is asking for to > fly in personnel and security equipment for the event. > > I'm sure that a lot of people are right now thinking very hard about what can > be done to avert that disaster. Let's not give up hope for now. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. > Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 26 06:49:53 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:49:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <20130726105712.49b59603@quill> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <20130726105712.49b59603@quill> Message-ID: In message <20130726105712.49b59603 at quill>, at 10:57:12 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Norbert Bollow writes >high amount that the UN is >asking for to fly in personnel and security equipment for the event. Do those personnel include the translators? -- 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 Fri Jul 26 07:06:08 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:06:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <007801ce89de$df326550$9d972ff0$@hserus.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <20130726105712.49b59603@quill> <007801ce89de$df326550$9d972ff0$@hserus.net> Message-ID: In message <007801ce89de$df326550$9d972ff0$@hserus.net>, at 14:32:34 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >The number of UN bureaucrats attending the event aren't likely to change >substantially from previous IGFs. So the one other possibility is that the >security requirements were ratcheted up and more sophisticated technology, >extra personnel etc would cost that much more. How much bigger is this bill than for previous events? I've seen some of the paperwork for hosting large ITU events, and the "UN presence" bill there was substantial too. Of course, Bali is rather further from Geneva than many previous locations for the IGF. The business class fare is at least $10k (if you aren't buying discounted, restricted, tickets). -- 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 femlists at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 08:05:51 2013 From: femlists at gmail.com (Magaly Pazello) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:05:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <20130726105712.49b59603@quill> <007801ce89de$df326550$9d972ff0$@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hello! is it an official information? I didn't see any official declaration about it, the only information I got was from Bill Drake who has forwarded to this list an exchange message between Vladimir Radunovic and Chengetai Masang, on 26/07, see: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Rumors about IGF Bali. Magaly -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From me at gbengasesan.com Fri Jul 26 08:13:21 2013 From: me at gbengasesan.com ('Gbenga Sesan) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:13:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <20130726105712.49b59603@quill> <007801ce89de$df326550$9d972ff0$@hserus.net> Message-ID: <3EB65FD9-94AC-4453-A6F4-96ABD185F155@gbengasesan.com> The IGF website had this, as at 12:12 GMT today: The IGF 2013 will be held in Bali, Indonesia on 22-25 October. [NEW] The UN is in touch with the organizers to discuss relevent aspects of the meeting. Contarary to rumours currently circulating, neither the IGF Secretariat nor UNDESA have recieved any official notification of a cancellation of the meeting. The overarching theme proposed by the MAG for the 2013 IGF meeting is: "Building Bridges"- Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development". --- 'Gbenga Sesan @gbengasesan www.gbengasesan.com On Jul 26, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Magaly Pazello wrote: > Hello! > is it an official information? I didn't see any official declaration about it, the only information I got was from Bill Drake who has forwarded to this list an exchange message between Vladimir Radunovic and Chengetai Masang, on 26/07, see: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] Rumors about IGF Bali. > > Magaly > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 26 08:53:31 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:53:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <3EB65FD9-94AC-4453-A6F4-96ABD185F155@gbengasesan.com> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <20130726105712.49b59603@quill> <007801ce89de$df326550$9d972ff0$@hserus.net> <3EB65FD9-94AC-4453-A6F4-96ABD185F155@gbengasesan.com> Message-ID: In message <3EB65FD9-94AC-4453-A6F4-96ABD185F155 at gbengasesan.com>, at 13:13:21 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013, 'Gbenga Sesan writes > "neither the IGF Secretariat nor UNDESA have recieved any official >notification of a cancellation of the meeting" Wheels turn slowly sometimes. The question we should be asking today is: "Is the Indonesian news report which was quoted earlier, untrue?" -- 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Jul 26 09:24:18 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:24:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F22528.7030804@apc.org> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> <51F21044.20809@ciroap.org> <51F22528.7030804@apc.org> Message-ID: <4CDFB0F3-5283-4502-A470-72BCE30453C5@privaterra.org> Agree with Anriette's assessment to wait for official news before jumping on the "igf bali got cancelled bandwagon" suffice it to say - the situation is a complex one. The govt. is week, internal indonesian politics that are at play. Sources familiar with Indonesia tell me that the ICT minister is involved in a scandal and likely will be sacked when ramadan ends. The news could be seen as a manoeuvre to raise attention and help with fundraising.. What we need to look for are statements from the Indonesian president's office and/or the IGF secretariat on the status. Prudent planners are also looking at contingencies - ie having the event take place elsewhere - but, crossing fingers that won't happen. Will keep folks updated Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-07-26, at 3:28 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all > > No formal notification has yet been sent by the Indonesian government, > as Donny has pointed out. This was also confirmed to me by the > Secretariat yesterday. > > Let's wait until it is official before assuming that the IGF in Bali is > cancelled. > > On de-linking the IGF from the UN... I agree with Parminder and Nick. > It would be a substantial blow to efforts to create more inclusive > international governance processes. It would reinforce efforts to make > an existing intergovernmental body like the ITU (which has a narrower > more technocratic focus, and which is only just beginning to recognise > the need for being more inclusive) responsible for being the UN-based > space to deal with internet policy. It would undermine efforts of > UN-bodies like UNESCO and the CSTD who are trying to be more inclusive. > > It would also make it MUCH harder to get meaningful developing country > participation in internet policy. > > Perhaps a new forum can be rebuilt somewhere else, with some other > funding. Yes, one could do that and find ways of involving civil > society. Technical community, developers, standard setters and business > people will come along, and so will a few governments who a) have the > resources and b) are not fully committed to international governance. > But most governments from the developing world are not likely to > participate effectively. > > More over, ground gained at regional and national levels could also be > lost. Is our longer term project not to achieve more democracy and > social justice in ALL global governance? I have always believed (naively > perhaps) that the IGF has been, and could be, a significant milestone on > this path. > > The IGF still has to improve, substantially. At times this feels hard to > achieve considering the lack of resources and capacity. The UN system > has to be challenged and perhaps this threat of the IGF being cancelled > should really galvanise us to look at the model and the relationships. > > But at this point in time I feel the loss would be huge. > > Anriette > > > > On 26/07/2013 07:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 26/07/13 13:06, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from UNOG >>>> (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy direction), >>>> other options have to be considered. >>> >>> Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a point >>> one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the 'multistakeholders' >>> that were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF during >>> the proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what censorship >>> are you talking about... >> >> The seized postcards and posters, the unwritten rules about what you can >> say about whom, etc. >> >>> .. and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which >>> secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid person....... >> >> Yes, what a farce. But long before that, Nitin and Markus had shaped >> the IGF into the image they had in mind for it all along, and it was >> very easy for them in that position of power to ignore the submissions >> about the IGF's structure and processes that didn't conform to that > vision. >> >>>> We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are >>>> notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well >>> >>> No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it >>> remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a limit >>> to which the multistakeholder front for corporate control can be > employed) >> >> Just also to note that I'm not humming a new tune here in suggesting >> that the IGF eventually cast off the UN. Five years ago I wrote that "a >> thin link between [the IGF] and the existing international system [is >> justified] at least until the network builds up sufficient social >> capital across all stakeholder groups to,break free and become fully >> autonomous." >> >> On the other hand I also take your point that when we try to reinvent >> intergovernmentalism we tend to do it badly. The GAC is one case in >> point, the WTO another (and its love child, the TPP, worse still). >> >> But one can draw strong parallels between the case for ICANN shedding >> its links to the US government and the IGF breaking free of its roots in >> the United Nations. >> >>>> - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN anyway, >>> >>> give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of funds, >>> dont allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN funding >>> for the IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to be >>> any flow of funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. >> >> Fair criticism. >> >>>> so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation worse. >>> >>> If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy spaces >>> will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much >>> about it... >> >> No I do see that, and I would support any change that would turn the IGF >> into a corporate controlled policy space. But I don't think much of the >> way the UN has handled it either. If the mandate is not renewed by the >> General Assembly next time, we'll have to reconsider this then. So this >> seemed like another apposite opportunity. >> > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8iUnAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewxNYIAOABClttEss+tdwTJ5xk+r/Y > 3/tJFOf8ShXNlozE2069kJXwICSlqShJ0xFZutaueZhzSgbOQ1lo0K98tQ3gDwPY > zRhf8w3itEqso8TzG6oYXNV4YvSzNYlpVPfPD0hmvKN/XCAo08TP2aTYSvxP7slh > KRnn3S0cIfp5p8oFY8oanmRuhzqEzvAbdOlF6eTYE/jam9MuuNC5ST2U71aUbiPX > G2s86cwoyM331X90mmYseYfOxgLttrDQskp9inSRH/xoMmFM7NUE0OlDwc3cHCMu > Z0jEODPFDQ+UM2m0/hySBdie/APcuyRSFGHOCqQoorPdSsRaigPceJVkjVR3Osw= > =4rMD > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 243 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 26 09:28:40 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <20130726105712.49b59603@quill> Message-ID: <1374845320.92970.YahooMailMobile@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> This is sad indeed ! So far we have not received official notifications so perhaps there is possibility of some resolution. Meanwhile is there anything we can do ? Shaila -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Jul 26 09:36:04 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:36:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <4CDFB0F3-5283-4502-A470-72BCE30453C5@privaterra.org> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> <51F21044.20809@ciroap.org> <51F22528.7030804@apc.org> <4CDFB0F3-5283-4502-A470-72BCE30453C5@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <0CA5A8FE-4850-4CD6-9D09-AEC9471EBE11@uzh.ch> We are on a semi-open MAG call now so I believe I can say: an Indonesian gentlemen from the private sector came on and said there's a budget shortfall and the meeting is canceled. However, Markus pointed out that the government has not made any definitive statement to that effect and that the UN is urgently trying to get clarification. Moreover, Chengetai has been in contact with Jakarta and has not been told this by anyone with direct governmental responsibility. So obviously things are churning in Jakarta and we probably shouldn't react immediately based on varying voices, tweets, etc. On Jul 26, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Agree with Anriette's assessment to wait for official news before jumping on the "igf bali got cancelled bandwagon" > > suffice it to say - the situation is a complex one. The govt. is week, internal indonesian politics that are at play. Sources familiar with Indonesia tell me that the ICT minister is involved in a scandal and likely will be sacked when ramadan ends. The news could be seen as a manoeuvre to raise attention and help with fundraising.. > > What we need to look for are statements from the Indonesian president's office and/or the IGF secretariat on the status. > > Prudent planners are also looking at contingencies - ie having the event take place elsewhere - but, crossing fingers that won't happen. > > Will keep folks updated > > Robert > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2013-07-26, at 3:28 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Dear all >> >> No formal notification has yet been sent by the Indonesian government, >> as Donny has pointed out. This was also confirmed to me by the >> Secretariat yesterday. >> >> Let's wait until it is official before assuming that the IGF in Bali is >> cancelled. >> >> On de-linking the IGF from the UN... I agree with Parminder and Nick. >> It would be a substantial blow to efforts to create more inclusive >> international governance processes. It would reinforce efforts to make >> an existing intergovernmental body like the ITU (which has a narrower >> more technocratic focus, and which is only just beginning to recognise >> the need for being more inclusive) responsible for being the UN-based >> space to deal with internet policy. It would undermine efforts of >> UN-bodies like UNESCO and the CSTD who are trying to be more inclusive. >> >> It would also make it MUCH harder to get meaningful developing country >> participation in internet policy. >> >> Perhaps a new forum can be rebuilt somewhere else, with some other >> funding. Yes, one could do that and find ways of involving civil >> society. Technical community, developers, standard setters and business >> people will come along, and so will a few governments who a) have the >> resources and b) are not fully committed to international governance. >> But most governments from the developing world are not likely to >> participate effectively. >> >> More over, ground gained at regional and national levels could also be >> lost. Is our longer term project not to achieve more democracy and >> social justice in ALL global governance? I have always believed (naively >> perhaps) that the IGF has been, and could be, a significant milestone on >> this path. >> >> The IGF still has to improve, substantially. At times this feels hard to >> achieve considering the lack of resources and capacity. The UN system >> has to be challenged and perhaps this threat of the IGF being cancelled >> should really galvanise us to look at the model and the relationships. >> >> But at this point in time I feel the loss would be huge. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> On 26/07/2013 07:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 26/07/13 13:06, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from UNOG >>>>> (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy direction), >>>>> other options have to be considered. >>>> >>>> Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a point >>>> one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the 'multistakeholders' >>>> that were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF during >>>> the proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what censorship >>>> are you talking about... >>> >>> The seized postcards and posters, the unwritten rules about what you can >>> say about whom, etc. >>> >>>> .. and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which >>>> secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid person....... >>> >>> Yes, what a farce. But long before that, Nitin and Markus had shaped >>> the IGF into the image they had in mind for it all along, and it was >>> very easy for them in that position of power to ignore the submissions >>> about the IGF's structure and processes that didn't conform to that >> vision. >>> >>>>> We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are >>>>> notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well >>>> >>>> No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it >>>> remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a limit >>>> to which the multistakeholder front for corporate control can be >> employed) >>> >>> Just also to note that I'm not humming a new tune here in suggesting >>> that the IGF eventually cast off the UN. Five years ago I wrote that "a >>> thin link between [the IGF] and the existing international system [is >>> justified] at least until the network builds up sufficient social >>> capital across all stakeholder groups to,break free and become fully >>> autonomous." >>> >>> On the other hand I also take your point that when we try to reinvent >>> intergovernmentalism we tend to do it badly. The GAC is one case in >>> point, the WTO another (and its love child, the TPP, worse still). >>> >>> But one can draw strong parallels between the case for ICANN shedding >>> its links to the US government and the IGF breaking free of its roots in >>> the United Nations. >>> >>>>> - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN anyway, >>>> >>>> give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of funds, >>>> dont allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN funding >>>> for the IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to be >>>> any flow of funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. >>> >>> Fair criticism. >>> >>>>> so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation worse. >>>> >>>> If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy spaces >>>> will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much >>>> about it... >>> >>> No I do see that, and I would support any change that would turn the IGF >>> into a corporate controlled policy space. But I don't think much of the >>> way the UN has handled it either. If the mandate is not renewed by the >>> General Assembly next time, we'll have to reconsider this then. So this >>> seemed like another apposite opportunity. >>> >> >> - -- >> - ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8iUnAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewxNYIAOABClttEss+tdwTJ5xk+r/Y >> 3/tJFOf8ShXNlozE2069kJXwICSlqShJ0xFZutaueZhzSgbOQ1lo0K98tQ3gDwPY >> zRhf8w3itEqso8TzG6oYXNV4YvSzNYlpVPfPD0hmvKN/XCAo08TP2aTYSvxP7slh >> KRnn3S0cIfp5p8oFY8oanmRuhzqEzvAbdOlF6eTYE/jam9MuuNC5ST2U71aUbiPX >> G2s86cwoyM331X90mmYseYfOxgLttrDQskp9inSRH/xoMmFM7NUE0OlDwc3cHCMu >> Z0jEODPFDQ+UM2m0/hySBdie/APcuyRSFGHOCqQoorPdSsRaigPceJVkjVR3Osw= >> =4rMD >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Fri Jul 26 09:40:35 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:40:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <0CA5A8FE-4850-4CD6-9D09-AEC9471EBE11@uzh.ch> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> <51F21044.20809@ciroap.org> <51F22528.7030804@apc.org> <4CDFB0F3-5283-4502-A470-72BCE30453C5@privaterra.org> <0CA5A8FE-4850-4CD6-9D09-AEC9471EBE11@uzh.ch> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 For all of you who need to get tickets for price reasons, or those who have tickets and are concerned: Check your travel insurance. Most credit cards come with travel cover that deals with cancellations of meetings. If you don't have good coverage and haven't bought tickets yet, get some that will cover you and go ahead. On the larger point: We can all speculate all we like but it doesn't mean anything. Until the Indonesian government says what it is doing (or not doing) we have to, in all prudence, soldier on - and assume that even if something happens to Bali as a destination there will be a meeting of the IGF somewhere, and continue with all our plans. Otherwise: we will end up downing tools and then having to pick them up again when there is less time left to finish the prep work. William Drake wrote: >We are on a semi-open MAG call now so I believe I can say: an >Indonesian gentlemen from the private sector came on and said there's a >budget shortfall and the meeting is canceled. However, Markus pointed >out that the government has not made any definitive statement to that >effect and that the UN is urgently trying to get clarification. >Moreover, Chengetai has been in contact with Jakarta and has not been >told this by anyone with direct governmental responsibility. So >obviously things are churning in Jakarta and we probably shouldn't >react immediately based on varying voices, tweets, etc. > > >On Jul 26, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Robert Guerra >wrote: > >> Agree with Anriette's assessment to wait for official news before >jumping on the "igf bali got cancelled bandwagon" >> >> suffice it to say - the situation is a complex one. The govt. is >week, internal indonesian politics that are at play. Sources familiar >with Indonesia tell me that the ICT minister is involved in a scandal >and likely will be sacked when ramadan ends. The news could be seen as >a manoeuvre to raise attention and help with fundraising.. >> >> What we need to look for are statements from the Indonesian >president's office and/or the IGF secretariat on the status. >> >> Prudent planners are also looking at contingencies - ie having the >event take place elsewhere - but, crossing fingers that won't happen. >> >> Will keep folks updated >> >> Robert >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> On 2013-07-26, at 3:28 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> No formal notification has yet been sent by the Indonesian >government, >>> as Donny has pointed out. This was also confirmed to me by the >>> Secretariat yesterday. >>> >>> Let's wait until it is official before assuming that the IGF in Bali >is >>> cancelled. >>> >>> On de-linking the IGF from the UN... I agree with Parminder and >Nick. >>> It would be a substantial blow to efforts to create more inclusive >>> international governance processes. It would reinforce efforts to >make >>> an existing intergovernmental body like the ITU (which has a >narrower >>> more technocratic focus, and which is only just beginning to >recognise >>> the need for being more inclusive) responsible for being the >UN-based >>> space to deal with internet policy. It would undermine efforts of >>> UN-bodies like UNESCO and the CSTD who are trying to be more >inclusive. >>> >>> It would also make it MUCH harder to get meaningful developing >country >>> participation in internet policy. >>> >>> Perhaps a new forum can be rebuilt somewhere else, with some other >>> funding. Yes, one could do that and find ways of involving civil >>> society. Technical community, developers, standard setters and >business >>> people will come along, and so will a few governments who a) have >the >>> resources and b) are not fully committed to international >governance. >>> But most governments from the developing world are not likely to >>> participate effectively. >>> >>> More over, ground gained at regional and national levels could also >be >>> lost. Is our longer term project not to achieve more democracy and >>> social justice in ALL global governance? I have always believed >(naively >>> perhaps) that the IGF has been, and could be, a significant >milestone on >>> this path. >>> >>> The IGF still has to improve, substantially. At times this feels >hard to >>> achieve considering the lack of resources and capacity. The UN >system >>> has to be challenged and perhaps this threat of the IGF being >cancelled >>> should really galvanise us to look at the model and the >relationships. >>> >>> But at this point in time I feel the loss would be huge. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26/07/2013 07:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> On 26/07/13 13:06, parminder wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from >UNOG >>>>>> (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy >direction), >>>>>> other options have to be considered. >>>>> >>>>> Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a >point >>>>> one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the >'multistakeholders' >>>>> that were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF >during >>>>> the proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what >censorship >>>>> are you talking about... >>>> >>>> The seized postcards and posters, the unwritten rules about what >you can >>>> say about whom, etc. >>>> >>>>> .. and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which >>>>> secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid >person....... >>>> >>>> Yes, what a farce. But long before that, Nitin and Markus had >shaped >>>> the IGF into the image they had in mind for it all along, and it >was >>>> very easy for them in that position of power to ignore the >submissions >>>> about the IGF's structure and processes that didn't conform to that >>> vision. >>>> >>>>>> We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are >>>>>> notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well >>>>> >>>>> No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it >>>>> remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a >limit >>>>> to which the multistakeholder front for corporate control can be >>> employed) >>>> >>>> Just also to note that I'm not humming a new tune here in >suggesting >>>> that the IGF eventually cast off the UN. Five years ago I wrote >that "a >>>> thin link between [the IGF] and the existing international system >[is >>>> justified] at least until the network builds up sufficient social >>>> capital across all stakeholder groups to,break free and become >fully >>>> autonomous." >>>> >>>> On the other hand I also take your point that when we try to >reinvent >>>> intergovernmentalism we tend to do it badly. The GAC is one case >in >>>> point, the WTO another (and its love child, the TPP, worse still). >>>> >>>> But one can draw strong parallels between the case for ICANN >shedding >>>> its links to the US government and the IGF breaking free of its >roots in >>>> the United Nations. >>>> >>>>>> - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN >anyway, >>>>> >>>>> give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of >funds, >>>>> dont allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN >funding >>>>> for the IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to >be >>>>> any flow of funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. >>>> >>>> Fair criticism. >>>> >>>>>> so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation >worse. >>>>> >>>>> If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy >spaces >>>>> will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much >>>>> about it... >>>> >>>> No I do see that, and I would support any change that would turn >the IGF >>>> into a corporate controlled policy space. But I don't think much >of the >>>> way the UN has handled it either. If the mandate is not renewed by >the >>>> General Assembly next time, we'll have to reconsider this then. So >this >>>> seemed like another apposite opportunity. >>>> >>> >>> - -- >>> - ------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8iUnAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewxNYIAOABClttEss+tdwTJ5xk+r/Y >>> 3/tJFOf8ShXNlozE2069kJXwICSlqShJ0xFZutaueZhzSgbOQ1lo0K98tQ3gDwPY >>> zRhf8w3itEqso8TzG6oYXNV4YvSzNYlpVPfPD0hmvKN/XCAo08TP2aTYSvxP7slh >>> KRnn3S0cIfp5p8oFY8oanmRuhzqEzvAbdOlF6eTYE/jam9MuuNC5ST2U71aUbiPX >>> G2s86cwoyM331X90mmYseYfOxgLttrDQskp9inSRH/xoMmFM7NUE0OlDwc3cHCMu >>> Z0jEODPFDQ+UM2m0/hySBdie/APcuyRSFGHOCqQoorPdSsRaigPceJVkjVR3Osw= >>> =4rMD >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >********************************************************** >William J. Drake >International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland >Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org >william.drake at uzh.ch >www.williamdrake.org >*********************************************************** - - Sent from my handheld thingie; please forgive linguistic mangling and brevity. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: APG v1.0.8 iQFEBAEBCgAuBQJR8nxTJxxOaWNrIEFzaHRvbi1IYXJ0IDxuYXNodG9uQGNjaWFu ZXQub3JnPgAKCRDGL9fGMqbWTR7NCACfZMWF0CpwfIBP+/PIkle/0FR2A2ZlKhJM XVkWUYVZwkjA0iMZb9OylgD/XOJtkeDhEdFJ4THIvw2KHfnNCSMHUip7F4zb/aZH ijbd3TVyXAUkTSs+KP05AhBMrHu5HDSHh2uAkd/IuGKlwqNNf3YLAs2QVtnR9GtW kyrxQjKPvvHcCCnbltZFdU1tdXH9DVAHUbqKRlPi/NX+JUk+1Wmutc6igVudZjey wpgusWUKyJhHT+gGG4zSpUd5GKAZOI6AJuBbWVtMtVCRrAf7uFpi0Fi4kiRnGOgF 3xD+qMO89hjfLmKSbMMyWXT81zrhtJEKEur4T19Kas1pksVRXlAx =fBVt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 11:10:42 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:10:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Jeremy said: Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to the remote participation experience. YES, Jeremy: it's time! I suggested this in today's MAG meeting, but there was not time to address the possibility. I do hope it is given serious consideration. gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 25 July 2013 22:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26/07/13 11:37, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > > I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed will now > weigh in to help > > > If not, then it will really confirm the contempt with which the IGF is > held as a process. There are Silicon Valley parties that have cost more > than the IGF's $1.05M shortfall. > > Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely > online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to > the remote participation experience. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 26 11:13:18 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:13:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> <51F21044.20809@ciroap.org> <51F22528.7030804@apc.org> <4CDFB0F3-5283-4502-A470-72BCE30453C5@privaterra.org> <0CA5A8FE-4850-4CD6-9D09-AEC9471EBE11@uzh.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 15:40:35 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Nick Ashton-Hart writes >Check your travel insurance. Most credit cards come with travel cover >that deals with cancellations of meetings. Over-sold travel insurance is one of my pet peeves. I've not yet seen one where a third party cancelling a meeting was a good enough reason to pay out. Especially the travel insurance bundled with credit cards, which normally (in the UK at least) completely excludes any trip where business might be conducted - in other words it's "holiday insurance" only. -- 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 Fri Jul 26 11:18:13 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:18:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <0CA5A8FE-4850-4CD6-9D09-AEC9471EBE11@uzh.ch> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> <51F21044.20809@ciroap.org> <51F22528.7030804@apc.org> <4CDFB0F3-5283-4502-A470-72BCE30453C5@privaterra.org> <0CA5A8FE-4850-4CD6-9D09-AEC9471EBE11@uzh.ch> Message-ID: In message <0CA5A8FE-4850-4CD6-9D09-AEC9471EBE11 at uzh.ch>, at 15:36:04 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013, William Drake writes >We are on a semi-open MAG call now so I believe I can say: an Indonesian gentlemen from the private sector came on and said there's a budget >shortfall and the meeting is canceled. However, Markus pointed out that the government has not made any definitive statement to that effect >and that the UN is urgently trying to get clarification. Moreover, Chengetai has been in contact with Jakarta and has not been told this by >anyone with direct governmental responsibility. So obviously things are churning in Jakarta and we probably shouldn't react immediately based >on varying voices, tweets, etc. Who is responsible for raising the finance? If it's the government then I can see that there would be some way to go before this was settled. Or is it the private sector consortium which seems to have "thrown in the towel" (excuse the metaphor). In which case unless the government or an external funder such as ISOC steps in, what's the likely outcome? -- 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 Fri Jul 26 11:37:46 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:37:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: The desire to 'go independent' is always understandable. However. A, if not the, IGF challenge has been to get serious engagement by governments, and most all governments. Since governments hold the power, such engagement is fundamental - without it, IGF is effectively window dressing on the policy process. To 'go independent' virtually assures no prospect for serious, more-or- less across the board, government engagement. So no 'multi' in the multi-stakeholder. At least not that - essential - multi. Said with - nonetheless - full appreciation for all that Jeremy and Ginger bring to the work. David On Jul 26, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Jeremy said: > Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in > purely online form. At least that would ensure that more attention > is given to the remote participation experience. > > YES, Jeremy: it's time! I suggested this in today's MAG meeting, but > there was not time to address the possibility. I do hope it is given > serious consideration. > > gp > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > The latest from Diplo... Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet > Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and > Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and > Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses > > > > On 25 July 2013 22:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26/07/13 11:37, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >> I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed >> will now weigh in to help > > If not, then it will really confirm the contempt with which the IGF > is held as a process. There are Silicon Valley parties that have > cost more than the IGF's $1.05M shortfall. > > Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in > purely online form. At least that would ensure that more attention > is given to the remote participation experience. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 26 11:50:22 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:50:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: However - weighing in with Jeremy and Ginger - I don't see that having the meeting online would necessarily preclude the attendance of governments? Deirdre On 26 July 2013 11:37, David Allen wrote: > The desire to 'go independent' is always understandable. > > However. > > A, if not the, IGF challenge has been to get serious engagement by > governments, and most all governments. Since governments hold the power, > such engagement is fundamental - without it, IGF is effectively window > dressing on the policy process. > > To 'go independent' virtually assures no prospect for serious, > more-or-less across the board, government engagement. So no 'multi' in the > multi-stakeholder. At least not that - essential - multi. > > Said with - nonetheless - full appreciation for all that Jeremy and Ginger > bring to the work. > > David > > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Jeremy said: > Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely > online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to > the remote participation experience. > > YES, Jeremy: it's time! I suggested this in today's MAG meeting, but there > was not time to address the possibility. I do hope it is given serious > consideration. > > gp > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read > more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* > ** > ** > > > On 25 July 2013 22:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 26/07/13 11:37, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >> >> I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed will >> now weigh in to help >> >> >> If not, then it will really confirm the contempt with which the IGF is >> held as a process. There are Silicon Valley parties that have cost more >> than the IGF's $1.05M shortfall. >> >> Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely >> online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to >> the remote participation experience. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 11:56:32 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:56:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Why would that be desirable at all? On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > However - weighing in with Jeremy and Ginger - I don't see that having > the meeting online would necessarily preclude the attendance of governments? > Deirdre > > > > On 26 July 2013 11:37, David Allen wrote: > >> The desire to 'go independent' is always understandable. >> >> However. >> >> A, if not the, IGF challenge has been to get serious engagement by >> governments, and most all governments. Since governments hold the power, >> such engagement is fundamental - without it, IGF is effectively window >> dressing on the policy process. >> >> To 'go independent' virtually assures no prospect for serious, >> more-or-less across the board, government engagement. So no 'multi' in the >> multi-stakeholder. At least not that - essential - multi. >> >> Said with - nonetheless - full appreciation for all that Jeremy and >> Ginger bring to the work. >> >> David >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Jeremy said: >> Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely >> online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to >> the remote participation experience. >> >> YES, Jeremy: it's time! I suggested this in today's MAG meeting, but >> there was not time to address the possibility. I do hope it is given >> serious consideration. >> >> gp >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet >> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance >> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy >> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read >> more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* >> ** >> ** >> >> >> On 25 July 2013 22:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 26/07/13 11:37, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed will >>> now weigh in to help >>> >>> >>> If not, then it will really confirm the contempt with which the IGF is >>> held as a process. There are Silicon Valley parties that have cost more >>> than the IGF's $1.05M shortfall. >>> >>> Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely >>> online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to >>> the remote participation experience. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>> Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >>> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Jul 26 12:02:49 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:02:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <308E2A74-347E-44D1-9611-EFBC24F88CB0@post.harvard.edu> For better or for worse, the issue is not whether they would be precluded. The question - all along - has been whether governments will choose, by their presence, to legitimize the activity. And perhaps one day give it some place in the policy firmament, beyond being a talk shop. When it may be taken - as independent, as proposed - away from nominal government tutelage, such as a governmental convener, this year Indonesia, and away from the UN ... then it becomes all those civil society types. And perhaps their corporate sponsons, with their private business agendas. They can talk all they want. To whatever end they may enjoy hearing, among themselves ... David On Jul 26, 2013, at 11:50 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > However - weighing in with Jeremy and Ginger - I don't see that > having the meeting online would necessarily preclude the attendance > of governments? > Deirdre > > > > On 26 July 2013 11:37, David Allen > wrote: > The desire to 'go independent' is always understandable. > > However. > > A, if not the, IGF challenge has been to get serious engagement by > governments, and most all governments. Since governments hold the > power, such engagement is fundamental - without it, IGF is > effectively window dressing on the policy process. > > To 'go independent' virtually assures no prospect for serious, more- > or-less across the board, government engagement. So no 'multi' in > the multi-stakeholder. At least not that - essential - multi. > > Said with - nonetheless - full appreciation for all that Jeremy and > Ginger bring to the work. > > David > > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Jeremy said: >> Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in >> purely online form. At least that would ensure that more attention >> is given to the remote participation experience. >> >> YES, Jeremy: it's time! I suggested this in today's MAG meeting, >> but there was not time to address the possibility. I do hope it is >> given serious consideration. >> >> gp >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >> >> The latest from Diplo... Upcoming online courses in Internet >> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet >> Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and >> Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and >> Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses >> >> >> >> On 25 July 2013 22:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 26/07/13 11:37, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >>> I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed >>> will now weigh in to help >> >> If not, then it will really confirm the contempt with which the IGF >> is held as a process. There are Silicon Valley parties that have >> cost more than the IGF's $1.05M shortfall. >> >> Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in >> purely online form. At least that would ensure that more attention >> is given to the remote participation experience. >> >> -- >> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email >> unless necessary. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Jul 26 12:02:12 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:02:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <8sm2pQzE2p8RFA6d@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 11:50:22 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Deirdre Williams writes > I don't see that having the meeting online would necessarily preclude >the attendance of governments Most of them are not used to working that way. They attend physical meetings. Remember that the important things happen in the corridors, not in the 5% of sessions you've picked somewhat at random to be in the room for. They could attend an online meeting, but it's almost certain that they won't have the tools, or the time off their day-job. While the southern hemisphere is important, the Bali meeting would be taking place mainly while both Europe and North America are asleep. -- 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 12:12:01 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:12:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <8sm2pQzE2p8RFA6d@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <8sm2pQzE2p8RFA6d@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Fair enough. Perhaps we could create a large virtual corridor?? To accommodate all of the stakeholders in the world??? But I can't think of a way to get around the time differences :-) On 26 July 2013 12:02, Roland Perry wrote: > In message gmail.com >, at > 11:50:22 on Fri, 26 Jul 2013, Deirdre Williams > writes > > I don't see that having the meeting online would necessarily preclude the >> attendance of governments >> > > Most of them are not used to working that way. They attend physical > meetings. Remember that the important things happen in the corridors, not > in the 5% of sessions you've picked somewhat at random to be in the room > for. > > They could attend an online meeting, but it's almost certain that they > won't have the tools, or the time off their day-job. While the southern > hemisphere is important, the Bali meeting would be taking place mainly > while both Europe and North America are asleep. > -- > 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 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kstouray at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 12:19:27 2013 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:19:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear all, I'd suggest a compromise here. First, let's get a listing of all those who account for the bloating of the security budget, and write to them to politely suggest they participate remotely. After all, the money saved by not attending in person should be able to buy plenty of bandwidth, if they don't already have such. The rest of the group can then go on to have their IGF. This, by the way, reminds me of the 2010 ICANN meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, when many in the community expressed concern about security. One action ICANN took was to leave the scribes behind. They were then fed live audio from the meetings, which they transcribed, and the resulting texts dumped in real time on screens at the Kenyatta Conference Centre in Nairobi! As has been pointed out, this matter ( rumor or fact) might indeed be a wakeup call for the IGF community. I think this makes a perfect topic for a workshop or forum on the future of the IGF at some future IGF. Until then, the debate can be had online, and wherever we meet over coffee. Cheers! Katim On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Jeremy said: > Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely > online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to > the remote participation experience. > > YES, Jeremy: it's time! I suggested this in today's MAG meeting, but there > was not time to address the possibility. I do hope it is given serious > consideration. > > gp > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read > more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* > ** > ** > > > On 25 July 2013 22:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 26/07/13 11:37, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >> >> I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed will >> now weigh in to help >> >> >> If not, then it will really confirm the contempt with which the IGF is >> held as a process. There are Silicon Valley parties that have cost more >> than the IGF's $1.05M shortfall. >> >> Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely >> online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to >> the remote participation experience. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. >> Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Jul 26 12:22:00 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:22:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51F2A228.6010109@cafonso.ca> If I understand Canabarro's question, govs will be, if not necessary, unavoidable :) To begin with, they are among the largest users of Internet resources (something many of us forget in our dialogues), so they can at a minimum claim the right to participate as major users of the Net. :) frt rgds --c.a. On 07/26/2013 12:56 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Why would that be desirable at all? > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> However - weighing in with Jeremy and Ginger - I don't see that having >> the meeting online would necessarily preclude the attendance of governments? >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> On 26 July 2013 11:37, David Allen wrote: >> >>> The desire to 'go independent' is always understandable. >>> >>> However. >>> >>> A, if not the, IGF challenge has been to get serious engagement by >>> governments, and most all governments. Since governments hold the power, >>> such engagement is fundamental - without it, IGF is effectively window >>> dressing on the policy process. >>> >>> To 'go independent' virtually assures no prospect for serious, >>> more-or-less across the board, government engagement. So no 'multi' in the >>> multi-stakeholder. At least not that - essential - multi. >>> >>> Said with - nonetheless - full appreciation for all that Jeremy and >>> Ginger bring to the work. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> Jeremy said: >>> Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely >>> online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to >>> the remote participation experience. >>> >>> YES, Jeremy: it's time! I suggested this in today's MAG meeting, but >>> there was not time to address the possibility. I do hope it is given >>> serious consideration. >>> >>> gp >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation >>> >>> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet >>> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance >>> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy >>> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read >>> more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* >>> ** >>> ** >>> >>> >>> On 25 July 2013 22:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> On 26/07/13 11:37, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed will >>>> now weigh in to help >>>> >>>> >>>> If not, then it will really confirm the contempt with which the IGF is >>>> held as a process. There are Silicon Valley parties that have cost more >>>> than the IGF's $1.05M shortfall. >>>> >>>> Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in purely >>>> online form. At least that would ensure that more attention is given to >>>> the remote participation experience. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >>>> Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>> >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >>>> hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. >>>> Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Fri Jul 26 13:04:28 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:04:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: The once in a year face to face meeting is an important opportunity to connect faces and build bridges by socializing at a more personal level. Online discussions are great, moreso as cost saving models and a way to build consensus and produce results over a long time, but also as a way to create a cartel of very enthusiastic IG experts where the "rest" don't know how to come in or what is happening -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Fri Jul 26 13:38:02 2013 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:38:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 Hakikur At 16:10 26-07-2013, Ginger Paque wrote: >Jeremy said: >Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in >purely online form. At least that would ensure that more attention >is given to the remote participation experience. > >YES, Jeremy: it's time! I suggested this in today's MAG meeting, but >there was not time to address the possibility. I do hope it is given >serious consideration. > >gp > >Ginger (Virginia) Paque >IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > >The latest from Diplo... Upcoming online courses in Internet >governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet >Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and >Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and >Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at >http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses > > > >On 25 July 2013 22:44, Jeremy Malcolm ><jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote: >On 26/07/13 11:37, >genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >>I imagine other governments that really want the event to proceed >>will now weigh in to help > >If not, then it will really confirm the contempt with which the IGF >is held as a process. There are Silicon Valley parties that have >cost more than the IGF's $1.05M shortfall. > >Alternatively it could be time for the IGF to be reimagined in >purely online form. At least that would ensure that more attention >is given to the remote participation experience. > >-- > >Dr Jeremy Malcolm >Senior Policy Officer >Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >Lumpur, Malaysia >Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >knowledge hub | >http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > >@Consumers_Int | >www.consumersinternational.org > | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >Read our >email >confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > >http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 26 13:54:26 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:54:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> Very good point Kivuva. Anriette On 26/07/2013 19:04, Kivuva wrote: > The once in a year face to face meeting is an important opportunity to > connect faces and build bridges by socializing at a more personal > level. Online discussions are great, moreso as cost saving models and > a way to build consensus and produce results over a long time, but > also as a way to create a cartel of very enthusiastic IG experts where > the "rest" don't know how to come in or what is happening > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 16:48:40 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 01:48:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> Message-ID: The possibility of IGF being cancelled in Bali this year may leave this important and open Internet policy dialogue space in a challenge. This also raises an important question about the efficient financial and budgetary management of such events. When the UN expense to place personnel ands equipment is a significant portion of the budget that is shifted on to the host country then it becomes prudent to revisit the financing mechanisms of the IGF and IGF Secretariat. This reminds me of Parminder's and others' past suggestions on how to create new UN funding support mechanisms for the IGF as the UN does for it's other organizations and how to improve funds and donations collection while putting in place transparent and accountable financial mechanisms for this unique ecosystem. So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism evolved even six years after the IGF was started? Concerned Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 26 16:54:28 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:54:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> Message-ID: +1 (many times) On Jul 26, 2013 4:48 PM, "Fouad Bajwa" wrote: > The possibility of IGF being cancelled in Bali this year may leave this > important and open Internet policy dialogue space in a challenge. This also > raises an important question about the efficient financial and budgetary > management of such events. When the UN expense to place personnel ands > equipment is a significant portion of the budget that is shifted on to the > host country then it becomes prudent to revisit the financing mechanisms of > the IGF and IGF Secretariat. This reminds me of Parminder's and others' > past suggestions on how to create new UN funding support mechanisms for the > IGF as the UN does for it's other organizations and how to improve funds > and donations collection while putting in place transparent and accountable > financial mechanisms for this unique ecosystem. > > So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, > second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism > evolved even six years after the IGF was started? > > Concerned > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jul 26 16:53:23 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:53:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F1FF26.1060106@ciroap.org> <51F203BB.5000200@itforchange.net> <51F21044.20809@ciroap.org> <51F22528.7030804@apc.org> <4CDFB0F3-5283-4502-A470-72BCE30453C5@privaterra.org> <0CA5A8FE-4850-4CD6-9D09-AEC9471EBE11@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <757031738842492681@unknownmsgid> Nick, +1 Sent from my iPhone On 2013-07-26, at 9:40 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > For all of you who need to get tickets for price reasons, or those who have tickets and are concerned: > > Check your travel insurance. Most credit cards come with travel cover that deals with cancellations of meetings. If you don't have good coverage and haven't bought tickets yet, get some that will cover you and go ahead. > > On the larger point: > > We can all speculate all we like but it doesn't mean anything. Until the Indonesian government says what it is doing (or not doing) we have to, in all prudence, soldier on - and assume that even if something happens to Bali as a destination there will be a meeting of the IGF somewhere, and continue with all our plans. > > Otherwise: we will end up downing tools and then having to pick them up again when there is less time left to finish the prep work. > > William Drake wrote: >> We are on a semi-open MAG call now so I believe I can say: an >> Indonesian gentlemen from the private sector came on and said there's a >> budget shortfall and the meeting is canceled. However, Markus pointed >> out that the government has not made any definitive statement to that >> effect and that the UN is urgently trying to get clarification. >> Moreover, Chengetai has been in contact with Jakarta and has not been >> told this by anyone with direct governmental responsibility. So >> obviously things are churning in Jakarta and we probably shouldn't >> react immediately based on varying voices, tweets, etc. >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Robert Guerra >> wrote: >> >>> Agree with Anriette's assessment to wait for official news before >> jumping on the "igf bali got cancelled bandwagon" >>> >>> suffice it to say - the situation is a complex one. The govt. is >> week, internal indonesian politics that are at play. Sources familiar >> with Indonesia tell me that the ICT minister is involved in a scandal >> and likely will be sacked when ramadan ends. The news could be seen as >> a manoeuvre to raise attention and help with fundraising.. >>> >>> What we need to look for are statements from the Indonesian >> president's office and/or the IGF secretariat on the status. >>> >>> Prudent planners are also looking at contingencies - ie having the >> event take place elsewhere - but, crossing fingers that won't happen. >>> >>> Will keep folks updated >>> >>> Robert >>> -- >>> R. Guerra >>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>> >>> On 2013-07-26, at 3:28 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> No formal notification has yet been sent by the Indonesian >> government, >>>> as Donny has pointed out. This was also confirmed to me by the >>>> Secretariat yesterday. >>>> >>>> Let's wait until it is official before assuming that the IGF in Bali >> is >>>> cancelled. >>>> >>>> On de-linking the IGF from the UN... I agree with Parminder and >> Nick. >>>> It would be a substantial blow to efforts to create more inclusive >>>> international governance processes. It would reinforce efforts to >> make >>>> an existing intergovernmental body like the ITU (which has a >> narrower >>>> more technocratic focus, and which is only just beginning to >> recognise >>>> the need for being more inclusive) responsible for being the >> UN-based >>>> space to deal with internet policy. It would undermine efforts of >>>> UN-bodies like UNESCO and the CSTD who are trying to be more >> inclusive. >>>> >>>> It would also make it MUCH harder to get meaningful developing >> country >>>> participation in internet policy. >>>> >>>> Perhaps a new forum can be rebuilt somewhere else, with some other >>>> funding. Yes, one could do that and find ways of involving civil >>>> society. Technical community, developers, standard setters and >> business >>>> people will come along, and so will a few governments who a) have >> the >>>> resources and b) are not fully committed to international >> governance. >>>> But most governments from the developing world are not likely to >>>> participate effectively. >>>> >>>> More over, ground gained at regional and national levels could also >> be >>>> lost. Is our longer term project not to achieve more democracy and >>>> social justice in ALL global governance? I have always believed >> (naively >>>> perhaps) that the IGF has been, and could be, a significant >> milestone on >>>> this path. >>>> >>>> The IGF still has to improve, substantially. At times this feels >> hard to >>>> achieve considering the lack of resources and capacity. The UN >> system >>>> has to be challenged and perhaps this threat of the IGF being >> cancelled >>>> should really galvanise us to look at the model and the >> relationships. >>>> >>>> But at this point in time I feel the loss would be huge. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26/07/2013 07:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> On 26/07/13 13:06, parminder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> and given that a lot of the obstruction of the IGF has come from >> UNOG >>>>>>> (funding constraints, censorship, Secretariat-led policy >> direction), >>>>>>> other options have to be considered. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, similar standard 'logics' against public system. Beyond a >> point >>>>>> one cannot keep responding to them. BTW, it is the >> 'multistakeholders' >>>>>> that were strictly against UN based stable funding for the IGF >> during >>>>>> the proceedings of the WG on IGF improvements , and what >> censorship >>>>>> are you talking about... >>>>> >>>>> The seized postcards and posters, the unwritten rules about what >> you can >>>>> say about whom, etc. >>>>> >>>>>> .. and dont know what you mean by secretariat -led policy, which >>>>>> secretariat BTW is now led by an ISOC appointed and paid >> person....... >>>>> >>>>> Yes, what a farce. But long before that, Nitin and Markus had >> shaped >>>>> the IGF into the image they had in mind for it all along, and it >> was >>>>> very easy for them in that position of power to ignore the >> submissions >>>>> about the IGF's structure and processes that didn't conform to that >>>> vision. >>>>> >>>>>>> We have WTO, ISO, etc as intergovernmental organisations that are >>>>>>> notionally separate from the UN, so why not the IGF as well >>>>>> >>>>>> No problem for it to be notionally separate from anywhere, till it >>>>>> remains a public system and not corporate driven... (there is a >> limit >>>>>> to which the multistakeholder front for corporate control can be >>>> employed) >>>>> >>>>> Just also to note that I'm not humming a new tune here in >> suggesting >>>>> that the IGF eventually cast off the UN. Five years ago I wrote >> that "a >>>>> thin link between [the IGF] and the existing international system >> [is >>>>> justified] at least until the network builds up sufficient social >>>>> capital across all stakeholder groups to,break free and become >> fully >>>>> autonomous." >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand I also take your point that when we try to >> reinvent >>>>> intergovernmentalism we tend to do it badly. The GAC is one case >> in >>>>> point, the WTO another (and its love child, the TPP, worse still). >>>>> >>>>> But one can draw strong parallels between the case for ICANN >> shedding >>>>> its links to the US government and the IGF breaking free of its >> roots in >>>>> the United Nations. >>>>> >>>>>>> - but it's clear there will be no funding flowing from the UN >> anyway, >>>>>> >>>>>> give the dog a bad name and then hang it... Starve the UN of >> funds, >>>>>> dont allow the IGF improvement working group to decide on UN >> funding >>>>>> for the IGF and then use the argument 'there anyway isnt going to >> be >>>>>> any flow of funding from the UN'.... Doesnt work. >>>>> >>>>> Fair criticism. >>>>> >>>>>>> so I don't see how cutting the UN loose would make the situation >> worse. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are intent on not seeing how corporate controlled policy >> spaces >>>>>> will be lot worse than where we are today, I really cannot do much >>>>>> about it... >>>>> >>>>> No I do see that, and I would support any change that would turn >> the IGF >>>>> into a corporate controlled policy space. But I don't think much >> of the >>>>> way the UN has handled it either. If the mandate is not renewed by >> the >>>>> General Assembly next time, we'll have to reconsider this then. So >> this >>>>> seemed like another apposite opportunity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> - -- >>>> - ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> 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 >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>>> >>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8iUnAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewxNYIAOABClttEss+tdwTJ5xk+r/Y >>>> 3/tJFOf8ShXNlozE2069kJXwICSlqShJ0xFZutaueZhzSgbOQ1lo0K98tQ3gDwPY >>>> zRhf8w3itEqso8TzG6oYXNV4YvSzNYlpVPfPD0hmvKN/XCAo08TP2aTYSvxP7slh >>>> KRnn3S0cIfp5p8oFY8oanmRuhzqEzvAbdOlF6eTYE/jam9MuuNC5ST2U71aUbiPX >>>> G2s86cwoyM331X90mmYseYfOxgLttrDQskp9inSRH/xoMmFM7NUE0OlDwc3cHCMu >>>> Z0jEODPFDQ+UM2m0/hySBdie/APcuyRSFGHOCqQoorPdSsRaigPceJVkjVR3Osw= >>>> =4rMD >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************************** > > - - Sent from my handheld thingie; please forgive linguistic mangling and brevity. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: APG v1.0.8 > > iQFEBAEBCgAuBQJR8nxTJxxOaWNrIEFzaHRvbi1IYXJ0IDxuYXNodG9uQGNjaWFu > ZXQub3JnPgAKCRDGL9fGMqbWTR7NCACfZMWF0CpwfIBP+/PIkle/0FR2A2ZlKhJM > XVkWUYVZwkjA0iMZb9OylgD/XOJtkeDhEdFJ4THIvw2KHfnNCSMHUip7F4zb/aZH > ijbd3TVyXAUkTSs+KP05AhBMrHu5HDSHh2uAkd/IuGKlwqNNf3YLAs2QVtnR9GtW > kyrxQjKPvvHcCCnbltZFdU1tdXH9DVAHUbqKRlPi/NX+JUk+1Wmutc6igVudZjey > wpgusWUKyJhHT+gGG4zSpUd5GKAZOI6AJuBbWVtMtVCRrAf7uFpi0Fi4kiRnGOgF > 3xD+qMO89hjfLmKSbMMyWXT81zrhtJEKEur4T19Kas1pksVRXlAx > =fBVt > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2222 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Jul 26 17:10:18 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 02:10:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> Message-ID: Maybe it's time to revive Geneva to play host once again after WSIS2003, after all it was the birthplace of the Global Dialogue on Internet Policy, WGIG and plays host to MAG Meets so why not a plan B for the UN to save its own reputation...? Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Jul 27, 2013, at 1:54 AM, "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" wrote: > +1 (many times) > > On Jul 26, 2013 4:48 PM, "Fouad Bajwa" wrote: > The possibility of IGF being cancelled in Bali this year may leave this important and open Internet policy dialogue space in a challenge. This also raises an important question about the efficient financial and budgetary management of such events. When the UN expense to place personnel ands equipment is a significant portion of the budget that is shifted on to the host country then it becomes prudent to revisit the financing mechanisms of the IGF and IGF Secretariat. This reminds me of Parminder's and others' past suggestions on how to create new UN funding support mechanisms for the IGF as the UN does for it's other organizations and how to improve funds and donations collection while putting in place transparent and accountable financial mechanisms for this unique ecosystem. > > So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism evolved even six years after the IGF was started? > > Concerned > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 26 17:29:33 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:29:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> Message-ID: Developing countries, especially Small Islands, encounter significant challenges and expenses to obtain the Schengen Visa (now required for Switzerland) with no guarantee of success. As a "visa neutral" venue, Geneva made a lot of sense for these types of gatherings in pre-Schengen times. Unfortunately, this advantage has been lost. On Jul 26, 2013 5:10 PM, "Fouad Bajwa" wrote: > Maybe it's time to revive Geneva to play host once again after WSIS2003, > after all it was the birthplace of the Global Dialogue on Internet Policy, > WGIG and plays host to MAG Meets so why not a plan B for the UN to save its > own reputation...? > > Best Regards > Fouad Bajwa > > Sent from my mobile device > > On Jul 27, 2013, at 1:54 AM, "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" < > tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 (many times) > On Jul 26, 2013 4:48 PM, "Fouad Bajwa" wrote: > >> The possibility of IGF being cancelled in Bali this year may leave this >> important and open Internet policy dialogue space in a challenge. This also >> raises an important question about the efficient financial and budgetary >> management of such events. When the UN expense to place personnel ands >> equipment is a significant portion of the budget that is shifted on to the >> host country then it becomes prudent to revisit the financing mechanisms of >> the IGF and IGF Secretariat. This reminds me of Parminder's and others' >> past suggestions on how to create new UN funding support mechanisms for the >> IGF as the UN does for it's other organizations and how to improve funds >> and donations collection while putting in place transparent and accountable >> financial mechanisms for this unique ecosystem. >> >> So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, >> second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism >> evolved even six years after the IGF was started? >> >> Concerned >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charityg at diplomacy.edu Fri Jul 26 18:01:41 2013 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:01:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Blind Community Fights for a More Accessible Web In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting article! I usually have been very adept in convert university textbooks through a long process of scanning, and conversion so the Kuzweil text to speech literacy software (assistive technology for reading) can read it to students with learning and physical disabilities. But you will be surprised that although textbooks have the ebook version, it does not have the braille version so our visual-impaired students rely on Kurzweil. Another issue is that most of the college coursework are online. For instance, C-engage Learning has APLIA that streamlines access to coursework in the hope that it will increase student engagement. Our Visual-impaired students use the JAWS (Job Access with Screen) screen reader when they access their coursework online. If not, their accommodations allow them to go to the testing center where the questions are read to them aloud. I agree that students have better access to screen readers and accommodations while they're in school. After school, it's totally a different ballgame. It also boils down to small and large scale business knowing that they should hire web developers who are aware of ADA compliance. There is an accessibility checklist published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, just FYI to some: * Every image, video file, audio file, plug-in, etc. has an alt tag Complex graphics are accompanied by detailed text descriptions The alt descriptions describe the purpose of the objects If an image is also used as a link, make sure the alt tag describes the graphic and the link destination Decorative graphics with no other function have empty alt descriptions (alt= "") Add captions to videos Add audio descriptions Create text transcript Create a link to the video rather than embedding it into web pages Add a link to the media player download Add an additional link to the text transcript The page should provide alternative links to the Image Map The tags must contain an *alt* attribute Data tables have the column and row headers appropriately identified (using the tag) Tables used strictly for layout purposes do NOT have header rows or columns Table cells are associated with the appropriate headers (e.g. with the id, headers, scope and/or axis HTML attributes) Make sure the page does not contain repeatedly flashing images Check to make sure the page does not contain a strobe effect A link is provided to a disability-accessible page where the plug-in can be downloaded All Java applets, scripts and plug-ins (including Acrobat PDF files and PowerPoint files, etc.) and the content within them are accessible to assistive technologies, or else an alternative means of accessing equivalent content is provided When form controls are text input fields use the LABEL element When text is not available use the title attribute Include any special instructions within field labels Make sure that form fields are in a logical tab order Include a ‘Skip Navigation' button to help those using text readers If you think about it, web accessibility is really easy to understand. Web developers just need to COMPLY. Charity Embley On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Thanks for sharing these. Please connect with Arun Mehta (skid.org.in and > bapsi.org) if you haven't already. > > --srs > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Catherine Roy > Date: 07/23/2013 6:14 AM (GMT+05:30) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Blind Community Fights for a More Accessible Web > > > Hello all, > > In an effort to create more awareness and discourse on tis list > regarding accessibility issues for people with disabilities with ICTs, I > will occasionally be sending out links to articles or resources on this > subject. I hope members will take an interest and think about how they > can further integrate this important dimension of the digital divide > into their work. > > The following article is from mashable.com and while it speaks to issues > that people with visually impairments face on the Web, I would add that > other types of disabilities (auditory, mobility, cognitive, learning) > all face challenges in this regard. > > It is always surprising to me that in ths day and age, all this still > needs saying. > > > > I am always available for questions or to point to resources, whether on > list or off. > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jul 26 18:57:20 2013 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 00:57:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> Message-ID: <51F2FED0.609@gih.com> Speaking purely as an individual, I might be tempted to suggest that some things are destined to fail, by design. I'd be interested in seeing the UN budget for IGF, vs. the UN budget for "competing" initiatives. Kind regards, Olivier (in a cynical mood) On 26/07/2013 22:48, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The possibility of IGF being cancelled in Bali this year may leave this important and open Internet policy dialogue space in a challenge. This also raises an important question about the efficient financial and budgetary management of such events. When the UN expense to place personnel ands equipment is a significant portion of the budget that is shifted on to the host country then it becomes prudent to revisit the financing mechanisms of the IGF and IGF Secretariat. This reminds me of Parminder's and others' past suggestions on how to create new UN funding support mechanisms for the IGF as the UN does for it's other organizations and how to improve funds and donations collection while putting in place transparent and accountable financial mechanisms for this unique ecosystem. > > So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism evolved even six years after the IGF was started? > > Concerned > > Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 26 19:19:32 2013 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:19:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F2FED0.609@gih.com> References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> <51F2FED0.609@gih.com> Message-ID: Hmmmmm .... that WOULD indeed be "interesting" as you so succinctly put it, Olivier. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Speaking purely as an individual, I might be tempted to suggest that > some things are destined to fail, by design. > I'd be interested in seeing the UN budget for IGF, vs. the UN budget for > "competing" initiatives. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier (in a cynical mood) > > On 26/07/2013 22:48, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > The possibility of IGF being cancelled in Bali this year may leave this > important and open Internet policy dialogue space in a challenge. This also > raises an important question about the efficient financial and budgetary > management of such events. When the UN expense to place personnel ands > equipment is a significant portion of the budget that is shifted on to the > host country then it becomes prudent to revisit the financing mechanisms of > the IGF and IGF Secretariat. This reminds me of Parminder's and others' > past suggestions on how to create new UN funding support mechanisms for the > IGF as the UN does for it's other organizations and how to improve funds > and donations collection while putting in place transparent and accountable > financial mechanisms for this unique ecosystem. > > > > So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, > second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism > evolved even six years after the IGF was started? > > > > Concerned > > > > Fouad Bajwa > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 26 23:55:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:25:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> <51F2FED0.609@gih.com> Message-ID: <016c01ce8a7d$1bd7b6b0$53872410$@gmail.com> I guess I'm missing something. The Internet currently represents what, a $ trillion, $ 2 trillion ??? revenues not to speak of its role in creating a framework for total global logistics, e-commerce, telecommunications, . surveillance,.in the global economy now and infinitely more in the future and the "Internet community" can't put together what is in fact a rounding error in that (the cost of a good blow-out bash in any of the major companies living off that economy) for the primary (?), only (?), multi-stakeholder forum dealing in a broader way with "Internet Governance" issues. Perhaps we should be discussing what this says about "Internet Governance" and the role and significance of the IGF in that constellation rather than figuring out how to pass the begging bowl around more efficiently. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 4:50 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: Re: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled Hmmmmm .... that WOULD indeed be "interesting" as you so succinctly put it, Olivier. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: Speaking purely as an individual, I might be tempted to suggest that some things are destined to fail, by design. I'd be interested in seeing the UN budget for IGF, vs. the UN budget for "competing" initiatives. Kind regards, Olivier (in a cynical mood) On 26/07/2013 22:48, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The possibility of IGF being cancelled in Bali this year may leave this important and open Internet policy dialogue space in a challenge. This also raises an important question about the efficient financial and budgetary management of such events. When the UN expense to place personnel ands equipment is a significant portion of the budget that is shifted on to the host country then it becomes prudent to revisit the financing mechanisms of the IGF and IGF Secretariat. This reminds me of Parminder's and others' past suggestions on how to create new UN funding support mechanisms for the IGF as the UN does for it's other organizations and how to improve funds and donations collection while putting in place transparent and accountable financial mechanisms for this unique ecosystem. > > So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism evolved even six years after the IGF was started? > > Concerned > > Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Jul 27 00:16:37 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:16:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> Message-ID: I also agree with Kivuva. While we are pessimistic about the organization of IGF in Bali, I think we should wait for the "final" confirmation from both official Indonesian Government and also IGF Secretariat. At MAG, we have not heard any formal decision. Of course, things look like in very bad shape, but there could be more effort to raise funding and also reduce the cost so that we could still go to Bali. The current yellow light does not necessarily mean the final red in my view. Which should not of course exclude the planning of the Plan B. However, the very core of IGF, its multi-stakeholder dimension be kept as many also point out. And I think we should still pursue face to face meeting, not pure online at least at this stage. izumi 2013/7/27 Anriette Esterhuysen > Very good point Kivuva. > > Anriette > > > On 26/07/2013 19:04, Kivuva wrote: > > The once in a year face to face meeting is an important opportunity to > > connect faces and build bridges by socializing at a more personal > > level. Online discussions are great, moreso as cost saving models and > > a way to build consensus and produce results over a long time, but > > also as a way to create a cartel of very enthusiastic IG experts where > > the "rest" don't know how to come in or what is happening > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jul 27 02:13:25 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:43:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> On Friday 26 July 2013 10:04 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: >>> According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, >>> one major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently >>> asked for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the >>> event. >> >> Time to cut the UN apron strings. > > Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run > the global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that > after subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public funding > for policy spaces and activities,.... The game has in fact begun.......Google has already offered 20k..... now we can wait for Facebook, Microsoft and AT&T to come in too.. Inter alia it can be very useful to wash, or rather 'persuade' people to gloss over, their sins that we know from Snowden disclosures... Next, the Indian parliament will fall short on budget and google with bankroll it too (dont consider it too far fetched, the ideology is fast catching) .... Do know the future that so many of us seem to so enthusiastically be rooting for.... And all this (public fund shortfalls) of course happens becuase in the first place google et al do not pay their taxes.... What a good use of the money saved in this way to bankroll policy spaces.... you can try and steer the debates away from any possible tax avoidance discussions, or from a discussion on the role of global Internet companies in using personal data for various kinds of control, political as well as economic... ICANN had more than 50 million US dollars in cash reserve, coming from the Internet tax they collect from Internet users. This inflow/reserve is expected to balloon with the new gtld program.. It is this money that should be employed for funding the global IG policy dialogue, ie is the IGF.... Rather than just using it to build and cultivate a community of rather fanatic supporters of ICANN... Such a proposal for using ICANN collected funds to support the IGF was put forward in the WG on IGF Improvements by my organisation as well as by India, and supported by developing countries. Why did other non gov stakeholders (including civil society) and developed countries oppose this proposal.... Can at least the civil society members of that group who are on this list explain.... I can see why private sector or corporate funded technical community did not want it... can also see the agenda of US supporting developed country constituency.... but why did civil society oppose it... If the IGF is really their most loved child... All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF (which they will pass off as likely to increase US control - never mind corporate control).... but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding from ICANN collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... Isnt that the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from staist as well corporate controls.... To avoid such obvious models of 'public' funding for the IGF seems to me almost a certainly deliberate strategy to ensure corporatist control over the IGF... I am happy to hear argument against this proposition. Can we have a discussion on this here - the appropriate model for funding the IGF... Can various actors present their arguments for and against the model I propose.... parminder > and adopting the neoliberal and anti-democratic (and fancy) > multistakeholder funding model, now that it has collapsed one is to > blame the public systems for it.... > > To repeat: this disaster occurred precisely because of cutting of the > apron strings that policy space should always have tied to public > funds and public systems. When Indonesian government said last year > that it was unable to fund the IGF, it should not have been handed > over to a private committee headed by a businessman. ... It should > have been shifted to another country willing to host it.... We are > participating in an absolute privatisation of governance and politics, > and simply following the neolib agenda that represents the interests > of the most powerful... > > And this is indeed sheer 'power' - that those who are responsible for > a 'failure' can so conveniently blame others for it, and employ their > own failure to further their cause.... > > And why should this be seen as a 'failure'. See it as an opportunity > to completely do away with pulbic funded and pulbic systems supported > public spaces... Lets go over completely to corporate funded policy > spaces and policy making.... Why make these moves in such shifty > cautious ways. So at least we will all know what is that we are > contributing to building - what kind of society... > > (By the way, right now we have a full fledged experiment of this kind > - corporate run policy spaces - running in India, it shows the pattern > and the larger design of certain ideologies and forces, and the extent > to which they have been successful.) > > parminder > > (PS: This is a general response, not just to your email, Jeremy. And > please do excuse my cynical language. These anti-democratic shifts are > really disturbing.) >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub | >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jul 27 02:16:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:46:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F2FED0.609@gih.com> References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> <51F2FED0.609@gih.com> Message-ID: <51F365C5.9070309@itforchange.net> On Saturday 27 July 2013 04:27 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Speaking purely as an individual, I might be tempted to suggest that > some things are destined to fail, by design. Yes, there are some deliberately designed destinies involved here.. However, there is much larger cast and plot in this, then what you seem to be thinking of.... parminder > I'd be interested in seeing the UN budget for IGF, vs. the UN budget for > "competing" initiatives. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier (in a cynical mood) > > On 26/07/2013 22:48, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> The possibility of IGF being cancelled in Bali this year may leave this important and open Internet policy dialogue space in a challenge. This also raises an important question about the efficient financial and budgetary management of such events. When the UN expense to place personnel ands equipment is a significant portion of the budget that is shifted on to the host country then it becomes prudent to revisit the financing mechanisms of the IGF and IGF Secretariat. This reminds me of Parminder's and others' past suggestions on how to create new UN funding support mechanisms for the IGF as the UN does for it's other organizations and how to improve funds and donations collection while putting in place transparent and accountable financial mechanisms for this unique ecosystem. >> >> So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism evolved even six years after the IGF was started? >> >> Concerned >> >> Fouad Bajwa > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 27 02:58:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 18:58:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGF Bali 2013 Message-ID: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> Dear All, Warm Greetings! Trust that you are in excellent health. Whilst we have not received official notification from the IGF Secretariat on the logistical aspects of the IGF in Bali despite the reports we are hearing from various listservs, forums and media, we would advise that people exercise wisdom and caution. I personally, feel that this would be "business as usual" until we are officially notified otherwise. There usually is no smoke without fire and there may be logistical challenges. I would certainly hope that the discussions are exhausted particularly within the CSTD Working Group on enhanced cooperation, in MAG discussions, as well as other forums globally. This logistical hurdle should be met with "wisdom" and negotiated in a way that manages and nurtures enhanced stakeholder engagement and the spirit of collaboration which has taken many years to build. Like a sandcastle, it all can easily come crashing down if diplomacy is not utilized. This is not a situation where frontal assaults on institutions would be beneficial but where the delivery and essential facilitation of an IGF is paramount. A the end of the day, the expectation is a viable global IGF and to be facilitated. Each person on this list has considerable weight and influence to impact the manner in which this unfolds. Should the worst case scenario unfold then we should certainly explore alternative mediums such as remote participation. Fortunately, the IGC has made considerable recommendations on remote participation to the MAG. This is an opportunity for stakeholders in the Internet Ecosystem or Universe can collaborate and share resources to deliver an IGF. When something precious to the community such as an IGF is threatened, this is where the test of our collaboration can be a testimony to the world. Multisectoral collaboration that is diverse, each one pitching in to see how best they can help. If there are other governments or Organisations that can help Indonesia out in whatever way they can to ensure that this goes ahead, this is when it is needed. We can do this! Because only TOGETHER we can! Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jul 27 03:42:01 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:12:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal.... Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend speakers in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to high level meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of them), special promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the website, on the daily IGF bulletin, on various equipment in the venue and many other things..... Government can make donations and in return "may lead a session in the IGF and be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events....." Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I want to have nothing to do with it. Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly knew about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the 2013 IGF was being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is it that they actively promoted it? (For a start the civil society members in the MAG who are on this list may please clarify.) Who authorised selling off the global IG policy dialogue space in this way... Does this correspond to the ground rules of a UN convened and run event which in my understanding the IGF continues to be. It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF... At the WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a government hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be accomplished. And done without people getting a whiff or it, what to say, a public discussion.. I have seen many problematic changes inside the MAG-IGF structure over the last year or so, which are aimed at a kind of capture, but this one simply takes the cake. Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue. (As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat, UNDESA or whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private group, even if under government’s weak tutelage. They should have offered it to other governments, one of which would certainly have taken the offer. What has happened is a natural flow from what is euphemistically called as a multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF, largely free from UN and governmental linkages. And this is what so many - including on this list - have been promoting. It is basically a corporate controlled and run IGF ) parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 04:04:44 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:34:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Indeed very funny this wasn't noticed at all in the process. While I'm OK with this happening with a clear understanding and advance knowledge, maybe reasonable consensus from the IGF as a while - if this was not addressed appropriately and hidden away that would be a clear conflict of interest. -C On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 1:12 PM, parminder wrote: > > Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to see > what is called as the 'fund raising proposal'of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure > scandal.... > > Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend speakers in > the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to high level > meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of them), special > promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the website, on the daily IGF > bulletin, on various equipment in the venue and many other things..... > Government can make donations and in return "may lead a session in the IGF > and be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events....." > > Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public > policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I want to > have nothing to do with it. > > Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly knew > about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the 2013 IGF was > being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is it that they actively > promoted it? (For a start the civil society members in the MAG who are on > this list may please clarify.) Who authorised selling off the global IG > policy dialogue space in this way... Does this correspond to the ground > rules of a UN convened and run event which in my understanding the IGF > continues to be. > > It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF... At the > WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a government > hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be accomplished. And done without > people getting a whiff or it, what to say, a public discussion.. I have > seen many problematic changes inside the MAG-IGF structure over the last > year or so, which are aimed at a kind of capture, but this one simply takes > the cake. > > Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue. > > (As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government > showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat, UNDESA or > whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private group, even if under > government’s weak tutelage. They should have offered it to other > governments, one of which would certainly have taken the offer. What has > happened is a natural flow from what is euphemistically called as a > multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF, largely free from UN and > governmental linkages. And this is what so many - including on this list - > have been promoting. It is basically a corporate controlled and run IGF ) > > > parminder > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Sat Jul 27 04:10:10 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:10:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Those are good provoking thoughts Parminder. My question would be, why are IGFs held in developing countries and we all know these countries have budget shortfalls? Can the UN have a provision of supplementing the budgets of the host if they cannot raise all the funds, or enlisting the help of sponsors? I think it's time to review the Tunis agenda that gave birth to the IGF. Regards. -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 04:10:47 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:40:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F365C5.9070309@itforchange.net> References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> <51F2FED0.609@gih.com> <51F365C5.9070309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 on both these points On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, > second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism > evolved even six years after the IGF was started? On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 11:46 AM, parminder wrote: > there is much larger cast and plot in this > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 27 04:16:59 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:46:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F381FB.3010209@itforchange.net> On Saturday 27 July 2013 01:40 PM, Kivuva wrote: > Those are good provoking thoughts Parminder. > > My question would be, why are IGFs held in developing countries and we > all know these countries have budget shortfalls? Can the UN have a > provision of supplementing the budgets of the host if they cannot > raise all the funds, or enlisting the help of sponsors? Dear Kivuva, The UN Working Group on Improvements to the IGF (2010-12) discussed the option of committed UN funding for the IGF, which proposal was supported by many developing countries. However it was shot down by the developed countries, business sector members, technical community members, and, interestingly, most civil society members... One can clearly see now where it was meant to be headed.... Bali disaster is just an episode on the way of a well crafted ploy to corporatised governance and kill democracy. Sooner the democratic and pulbic interest minded civil socity actors in the IG space understand the game and distance themselves from it, the better. In fact to do so is crucial if democracy is to be saved. .... parminder > > I think it's time to review the Tunis agenda that gave birth to the IGF. > > Regards. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Sat Jul 27 04:17:44 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:17:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> Message-ID: <000001401f346c98-e850fd1a-b5db-4b34-97ee-45a9db1feefe-000000@email.amazonses.com> There have been many efforts for many years by many people and organisations to put the IGF on a sustainable financial footing but it wasn't enough of a priority for enough stakeholders to make it happen (being completely candid). My hope is that the current situation will actually end up with the prioritisation of a sustainable fix by enough stakeholders that it gets sorted out at last. On 26 Jul 2013, at 22:48, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism evolved even six years after the IGF was started? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Sat Jul 27 04:20:23 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:20:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F381FB.3010209@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <51F381FB.3010209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <000001401f36d95d-e1533acf-a742-4ed0-ad9a-d2808fbca9f1-000000@email.amazonses.com> If the time and energy that was spent on black helicopter thinking was spent on helping to fix the problem of sustainable funding for the IGF then we'd be a lot farther along than we are. Whether or not your POV is accurate, Parminder, wouldn't it be more useful to focus on fixing the funding problem so that it no longer matters whether you are right or not? As a friend in Geneva said recently, there is making a point, and there is making a difference. Given the situation we are in, could we please aim for the latter and not the former? On 27 Jul 2013, at 10:16, parminder wrote: > One can clearly see now where it was meant to be headed.... Bali disaster is just an episode on the way of a well crafted ploy to corporatised governance and kill democracy. Sooner the democratic and pulbic interest minded civil socity actors in the IG space understand the game and distance themselves from it, the better. In fact to do so is crucial if democracy is to be saved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jul 27 04:47:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:17:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled Message-ID: -+1 nick, such conspiracy theories aren't productive and at this stage they are actually moot, with the Bali igf likely to just not happen. Hanlon razor differentiating between incompetence and malice is a very useful test, I must say.  That said, I will now thank parminder for calling out the Bali organizing committee trying to run a cash for speaker slots program, that is just not on.  Two things are clear - we need an independent standing program committee, of course with local host representative(s) and the other thing is that sponsorship from wherever it comes, UN, national governments, industry, civil society, should be compensated with something other than speaker slots. Advertising at the venue, sponsorship of lunch, coffee and dinner, etc is fine to an extent but sponsorship must be rigidly firewalled from the program committee's processes.  -srs -------- Original message -------- From: Nick Ashton-Hart Date: 07/27/2013 1:50 PM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,parminder Cc: Kivuva Subject: Re: [governance] IGF Cancelled If the time and energy that was spent on black helicopter thinking was spent on helping to fix the problem of sustainable funding for the IGF then we'd be a lot farther along than we are. Whether or not your POV is accurate, Parminder, wouldn't it be more useful to focus on fixing the funding problem so that it no longer matters whether you are right or not? As a friend in Geneva said recently, there is making a point, and there is making a difference. Given the situation we are in, could we please aim for the latter and not the former? On 27 Jul 2013, at 10:16, parminder wrote: One can clearly see now where it was meant to be headed.... Bali disaster is just an episode on the way of a well crafted ploy to corporatised governance and kill democracy. Sooner the democratic and pulbic interest minded civil socity actors in the IG space understand the game and distance themselves from it, the better. In fact to do so is crucial if democracy is to be saved. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Sat Jul 27 05:25:45 2013 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:45 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Pardon me Parminder, but where exactly is the "scandal"? It would help if you could explain what position you are taking. This organising committee has been "delegated" the task of hosting the IGF, and simply cannot raise the funds through donations. The Government has been unable to contribute (recently declining yet again, and proposing to cancel the event); and the UN, far from supporting the event financially, requires substantial costs to be paid for secure, staff, travel and other. The Indonesian committee is a multistakeholder grouping, including industry and community. They are unable to attract donations, so they are proposing, it seems, to attract funding by providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement. As far as I am aware there has been no clearance given from anyone for this particular approach; so I assume it is still a "proposal". For a hard-working committee, which has been more-or-less cut adrift, this kind of additional fund-raising work was not expected, on top of the big job of making the event happen. They are largely alone and trying to do their best, to support an event which is supposed to be inclusive and supportive of new modes of organisation, yet support seems to be sadly lacking. Rather than cries of "scandal" I'm sure that constructive contributions would be far more welcomed, by those who are actually doing the work. Paul. On 27/07/2013, at 5:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal.... > > Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend speakers in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to high level meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of them), special promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the website, on the daily IGF bulletin, on various equipment in the venue and many other things..... Government can make donations and in return "may lead a session in the IGF and be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events....." > > Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I want to have nothing to do with it. > > Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly knew about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the 2013 IGF was being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is it that they actively promoted it? (For a start the civil society members in the MAG who are on this list may please clarify.) Who authorised selling off the global IG policy dialogue space in this way... Does this correspond to the ground rules of a UN convened and run event which in my understanding the IGF continues to be. > > It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF... At the WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a government hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be accomplished. And done without people getting a whiff or it, what to say, a public discussion.. I have seen many problematic changes inside the MAG-IGF structure over the last year or so, which are aimed at a kind of capture, but this one simply takes the cake. > > Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue. > > (As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat, UNDESA or whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private group, even if under government’s weak tutelage. They should have offered it to other governments, one of which would certainly have taken the offer. What has happened is a natural flow from what is euphemistically called as a multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF, largely free from UN and governmental linkages. And this is what so many - including on this list - have been promoting. It is basically a corporate controlled and run IGF ) > > > parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2880 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jul 27 05:28:52 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:28:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130727112852.43d81ff4@quill> Parminder wrote: > Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to > see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' > of > the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a > pure scandal.... > > Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend > speakers in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to > high level meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of > them), special promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the > website, on the daily IGF bulletin, on various equipment in the venue > and many other things..... Government can make donations and in > return "may lead a session in the IGF and be responsible for opening, > summary, and the closing of events....." > > Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public > policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I > want to have nothing to do with it. While it isn't clear how official that Google docs file is, these offensive aspects are also in the clearly official document on the host country website, which can be found by following the “Host Country Website” link on intgovforum.org, then looking at the bottom of the “About IGF 2013” page. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kstouray at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 05:31:54 2013 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:31:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Without subscribing to your theories about an ICANN "Internet tax," I'd like to say that your e-mail raises an interesting point: the possibility of having ICANN fund (even if in part) the IGF on a permanent basis. There are at least two reasons why this would be worth exploring, in a very constructive manner, by the community. The first is that the possibility of transforming one of the three public meetings it has every year into an IG. To accomodate the needs of the ICANN community, the IGF will have an ICANN track so pressing issues can be discussed face to face by the ICANN community. The IGF is a multi-stakeholder process, and ICANN is interested in, and will benefit from a strengthened multi-stakeholder process in its community. I know that when I was on the ICANN Board, we on a number of occassions dialoged on the issue of what to do about surplus new gTLD program revenues. This is another reason why I think it is a good idea to pursue the possibility of ICANN to fund the IGF, because I think it would be make sense to use some of these revenues, which could be substantial, to fund the IGF. Given that the revenue from the new gTLD program application fees is one-off (until we have another new gTLD program; whenever that is), we can work toward amending the registry/registrar agreements to include a clause to apply part of domain name registration fees (e.g. $0.01/name which would mean $2 million per year for 200 million names). So we can use the windfall from the new gTLD program application fees to kickstart the funding, and in the medium term make arrangements for a more sustainable funding model based on revenues from domain name registrations. I think such an ICANN/IGF match would be one made in heaven ;-) Katim On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:13 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 26 July 2013 10:04 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > > According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one > major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked for > US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. **** > > > Time to cut the UN apron strings. > > > Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run the > global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that after > subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public funding for policy > spaces and activities,.... > > > The game has in fact begun.......Google has already offered 20k..... now > we can wait for Facebook, Microsoft and AT&T to come in too.. Inter alia it > can be very useful to wash, or rather 'persuade' people to gloss over, > their sins that we know from Snowden disclosures... > > Next, the Indian parliament will fall short on budget and google with > bankroll it too (dont consider it too far fetched, the ideology is fast > catching) .... Do know the future that so many of us seem to so > enthusiastically be rooting for.... > > And all this (public fund shortfalls) of course happens becuase in the > first place google et al do not pay their taxes.... What a good use of the > money saved in this way to bankroll policy spaces.... you can try and steer > the debates away from any possible tax avoidance discussions, or from a > discussion on the role of global Internet companies in using personal data > for various kinds of control, political as well as economic... > > ICANN had more than 50 million US dollars in cash reserve, coming from the > Internet tax they collect from Internet users. This inflow/reserve is > expected to balloon with the new gtld program.. It is this money that > should be employed for funding the global IG policy dialogue, ie is the > IGF.... Rather than just using it to build and cultivate a community of > rather fanatic supporters of ICANN... > > Such a proposal for using ICANN collected funds to support the IGF was put > forward in the WG on IGF Improvements by my organisation as well as by > India, and supported by developing countries. Why did other non gov > stakeholders (including civil society) and developed countries oppose this > proposal.... Can at least the civil society members of that group who are > on this list explain.... I can see why private sector or corporate funded > technical community did not want it... can also see the agenda of US > supporting developed country constituency.... but why did civil society > oppose it... If the IGF is really their most loved child... > > All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF (which they will pass off as > likely to increase US control - never mind corporate control).... but can > they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding from ICANN collected > Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... Isnt that the right model of > funding the IGF , keeping if safe from staist as well corporate controls.... > > To avoid such obvious models of 'public' funding for the IGF seems to me > almost a certainly deliberate strategy to ensure corporatist control over > the IGF... I am happy to hear argument against this proposition. > > Can we have a discussion on this here - the appropriate model for funding > the IGF... Can various actors present their arguments for and against the > model I propose.... > > parminder > > > > > > and adopting the neoliberal and anti-democratic (and fancy) > multistakeholder funding model, now that it has collapsed one is to blame > the public systems for it.... > > To repeat: this disaster occurred precisely because of cutting of the > apron strings that policy space should always have tied to public funds and > public systems. When Indonesian government said last year that it was > unable to fund the IGF, it should not have been handed over to a private > committee headed by a businessman. ... It should have been shifted to > another country willing to host it.... We are participating in an absolute > privatisation of governance and politics, and simply following the neolib > agenda that represents the interests of the most powerful... > > And this is indeed sheer 'power' - that those who are responsible for a > 'failure' can so conveniently blame others for it, and employ their own > failure to further their cause.... > > And why should this be seen as a 'failure'. See it as an opportunity to > completely do away with pulbic funded and pulbic systems supported public > spaces... Lets go over completely to corporate funded policy spaces and > policy making.... Why make these moves in such shifty cautious ways. So at > least we will all know what is that we are contributing to building - what > kind of society... > > (By the way, right now we have a full fledged experiment of this kind - > corporate run policy spaces - running in India, it shows the pattern and > the larger design of certain ideologies and forces, and the extent to which > they have been successful.) > > parminder > > (PS: This is a general response, not just to your email, Jeremy. And > please do excuse my cynical language. These anti-democratic shifts are > really disturbing.) > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Jul 27 05:59:24 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:59:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 11:31 27/07/2013, Katim S. Touray wrote: >So we can use the windfall from the new gTLD program application >fees to kickstart the funding, and in the medium term make >arrangements for a more sustainable funding model based on revenues >from domain name registrations. This might address the DNS completion issue: if the IGF was asking for an ICANN financing, according to its principles it could not depend on a "radical monopoly" (Ivan Illitch), would be obliged to foster competition, and ask for a proprotional financing to each of the ICANN competitors. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jul 27 06:03:08 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 18:03:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 27/07/2013, at 3:42 PM, parminder wrote: > Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal.... This is hopefully just naivety on the part of the local organisers, who didn't appreciate the difference between the IGF and any other Internet conference. They can be forgiven for this because indeed until now there has been precious little difference between the IGF and any other Internet conference. That this could have happened is more of an indictment of the state of the IGF than of the Indonesian team. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Jul 27 06:05:58 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 18:05:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] Demands to IGF host nation and UNDESA over funding (was: Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali) References: Message-ID: <3EF2E042-A575-4B6A-9F40-18394EEC27EC@ciroap.org> Forwarding with permission. Let's not dismiss these recommendations by dint of where they come from. I would like to see us discussing and supporting them if appropriate. Begin forwarded message: > From: Patrick Ryan > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali > Date: 27 July 2013 12:56:37 PM GMT+08:00 > To: "Smith, Bill" > Cc: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" > > Dear all, > > As many of you know, the budget and funding issue has been a pet project of mine since February, and has been quite intense since I joined the MAG in May. It's a frustrating process because the way that the UN accounts for projects is not standard (they don't use GAAP accounting, for example), it's obscure, and the details are limited to donors. This makes it really complicated: there's no way to attract donors unless there is transparency, and even when one becomes a donor, there is still much to be desired. I'll spare further soap-boxing on this point for another day, but offer some of the following facts for the community. I don't claim to understand all of this nor have any of us verified them, but at this point sharing them is the only thing that I can see as a path towards resolution. We have two concrete asks that we think can be helpful. > > #1, Request for ID-IGF: tell us what number is needed. > The organization in Indonesia that is now sponsoring the IGF is ID-IGF, and their fundraising brochure is here. It's actually a $2m total figure (although we've also heard $2.5), but the source for the $2m number is on p. 8 ("The overall fundraising target for hosting the IGF in 2013 is USD $1,966,560.20") There are certainly many things that can be reduced, as Vint mentions. Thus, we ask ID-IGF to provide us with a bottom-line number on what they need to raise to move forward. > > #2, Request for UNDESA: clear the path for Tides. As of right now, if any individual wants to fund the IGF, they need an individual contract with UNDESA to do so. That is a complicated process and does not scale (it took Google more than six months to negotiate the contract last year). While crowdsourcing would be wonderful, it's completely impossible. We have a proposed solution, but it is stalled. We propose working with Tides.org, a non-profit that can aggregate funds. Through Tides, we could set up a simple website and crowdsource. Here is my email about Tides as sent to donors and MAG in Feb and in May, and here the actual Tides proposal that Tides sent to the IGF. Our request to UNDESA: clear the path for the Tides proposal so that crowdsourcing can be enabled (UNDESA and Tides have met various times and have exchanged documents, but after five months, it is still open, but should be able to wrap quickly). > > #3, Request for UNDESA: share the budget details with the community. We've asked many times for more transparency in the budget, as noted above. I've documented this request with UN officials as well. It's crucial and not at all controversial in government entities, and it's fundamental to create trust and attract further donors. We've asked UNDESA to share that and think it's important that it be acted upon. Request for UNDESA: share the overall budget details on the IGF with the community, both for the IGF activities and for in-country budgets. > > These requests are straightforward but we'll need the community to support us if you agree. > > Patrick > > ------ > patrick ryan > public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations > patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346 > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Smith, Bill wrote: > ... and I don't believe we have ever been able to get what in business we might call a reasonable budget. Large-scale events like the IGF are expensive and a figure of 2.5mm USD is not unreasonable. I can also state the 900k USD figure for UN "security and support" is in line with estimates I have hear bandied about. I have also been told that those costs are unavoidable for a UN event. > > I, and I expect many others, would consider an attendance fee quite acceptable. Of course there will be issues that would have to be addressed but they are manageable. Perhaps tomorrow will be a better day. > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:23 PM, "Vint Cerf" wrote: > >> the numbers i have are not quite that favorable. I have been told the target is $2.5M and that the Indonesian ISP Alliance has raised $900K of that leaving a shortfall of $1.6M. I don't have adequate breakout to know what is included in these figures. In Azerbaijan, the government apparently tried to pay for all the food and maybe we could ask the attendees to pay an attendance fee to cover that? Until there is more clarity as to out of pocket expense for the venue, networking, other services, it will be hard to raise funds, I think. >> >> >> v >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> Wyn, >> >> the consideration that good and trusted friend Peng Hwa conveys is contained (having read him) in my question re unreasonable demands by the UN - and it sure looks like one! >> >> It's very tempting to second-guess what is going on, it's sure the full truth may never out, there does seem to be a lot of mischief and games going on... so let's keep a watchful eye. >> >> One sure thing we will need to do is more transparency in the use of this kind of funds and to understand whether such a bill can be justified and accepted at all. Keep in mind for the right time. >> >> 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: internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org [internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Winthrop Yu [w.yu at gmx.net] >> Enviado el: viernes, 26 de julio de 2013 18:17 >> Hasta: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org >> Asunto: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali >> >> In that vein Dr. Alejandro, the numbers show that the Indonesian organizers >> had already successfully raised US$1.15M, a not insubstantial amount. Yes, >> there is still a shortfall of US$1.05M. But it seems to me that without that >> single $900K expense item (mentioned by Prof. Ang below), then the Indons are >> already very close (only $105K remaining) to meeting their target budget? >> >> WYn >> >> >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* > > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50 >> > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled >> > To: "program at ... > > > > >> > >> > Folks, >> > >> > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. >> > The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a >> > businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group. >> > >> > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at >> > >> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. >> >> > >> > Use Google translate and you will be able to read. >> > >> > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking for >> > possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we concluded that >> > they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there were some >> > possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many. >> > >> > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they >> > had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of >> > US$1.05M. >> > >> > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said that >> > one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel and >> > security apparatus to the meeting. >> > >> > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more >> > complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for >> > Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not win, >> > what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting in the >> > same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's stage at >> > that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose ministry >> > oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of those series >> > of unfortunate events. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Peng Hwa >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may >> > be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please >> > delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. >> > >> > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Rigf_program mailing list >> > Rigf_program at ... > > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program >> >> >> >> On 7/27/2013 4:12 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > for all I know ISOC and ICANN already make substantial monetary contributions to >> > the IGF, in different forms. They have been key all over the years. >> > >> > I am glad to see that Google is making a commitment of the right size - enough >> > of a fraction of the total cost to be significant, a real commitment, and also >> > leaving enough space for others to co-own the sustainability of the IGF. >> > >> > I regret that this situation can also be seen as a victory for extortion - >> > parties not honoring their initial expected commitments finding someone to pay >> > for that - and think that we will need to understand the details better (was the >> > UN demanding too much or something unfair? were the parties in Indonesia missing >> > their targets?) in order to judge and to manage this into the future. >> > >> > It remains to be seen whether the extortion worked, or an honest deal is >> > stricken, in Indonesia or elsewhere, and the result will help distill who is >> > actually committed to an open IGF and who may be not so. Certainly Google's >> > contribution has to be welcomed and one would hope that it starts a sort of >> > bidding process in which parties compete to complete the support the ITF needs. >> > Much remains to be sorted out. >> > >> > But it is undeniable good news that there is a way to provide sustainability to >> > the IGF from a multistakeholder set of contributions, and for now I'll reserve >> > all other judgment and celebrate! >> > >> > 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 >> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >> https://portal.isoc.org/ >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >> https://portal.isoc.org/ >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >> https://portal.isoc.org/ >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jul 27 06:14:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:44:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F39D73.3040100@itforchange.net> On Saturday 27 July 2013 02:55 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Pardon me Parminder, but where exactly is the "scandal"? It would help if you could explain what position you are taking. Paul (and Nick) What is the scandal here? Well, I can give a long response and then we can keep arguing over it. And I dont think this is a point that I consider open for arguments. So I will give a short one, even at the risk of sounding blunt for which I apologise in advance. If you dont see a scandal here, either you dont understand democracy or you dont value it. Period. (I am further sorry that you have these views since you are also the chair of the so-called Asia Pacific regional IGF. Shows how deep the malaise has gone, while Nero plays on his flute.) BYW, would you allow the parliament of Australia, or even the public assemblies at your local town hall, to get corporatised in this manner? I mean, poor financial conditions of governments can always be cited as the convenient reason. parminder > > This organising committee has been "delegated" the task of hosting the IGF, and simply cannot raise the funds through donations. The Government has been unable to contribute (recently declining yet again, and proposing to cancel the event); and the UN, far from supporting the event financially, requires substantial costs to be paid for secure, staff, travel and other. > > The Indonesian committee is a multistakeholder grouping, including industry and community. They are unable to attract donations, so they are proposing, it seems, to attract funding by providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement. > > As far as I am aware there has been no clearance given from anyone for this particular approach; so I assume it is still a "proposal". For a hard-working committee, which has been more-or-less cut adrift, this kind of additional fund-raising work was not expected, on top of the big job of making the event happen. They are largely alone and trying to do their best, to support an event which is supposed to be inclusive and supportive of new modes of organisation, yet support seems to be sadly lacking. > > Rather than cries of "scandal" I'm sure that constructive contributions would be far more welcomed, by those who are actually doing the work. > > Paul. > > > > On 27/07/2013, at 5:42 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal.... >> >> Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend speakers in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to high level meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of them), special promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the website, on the daily IGF bulletin, on various equipment in the venue and many other things..... Government can make donations and in return "may lead a session in the IGF and be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events....." >> >> Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I want to have nothing to do with it. >> >> Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly knew about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the 2013 IGF was being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is it that they actively promoted it? (For a start the civil society members in the MAG who are on this list may please clarify.) Who authorised selling off the global IG policy dialogue space in this way... Does this correspond to the ground rules of a UN convened and run event which in my understanding the IGF continues to be. >> >> It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF... At the WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a government hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be accomplished. And done without people getting a whiff or it, what to say, a public discussion.. I have seen many problematic changes inside the MAG-IGF structure over the last year or so, which are aimed at a kind of capture, but this one simply takes the cake. >> >> Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue. >> >> (As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat, UNDESA or whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private group, even if under government’s weak tutelage. They should have offered it to other governments, one of which would certainly have taken the offer. What has happened is a natural flow from what is euphemistically called as a multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF, largely free from UN and governmental linkages. And this is what so many - including on this list - have been promoting. It is basically a corporate controlled and run IGF ) >> >> >> parminder >> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jul 27 06:26:55 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:56:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F39D73.3040100@itforchange.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F39D73.3040100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1401faa97c7.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> It would help enormously if you could clarify just what scandal you are referring to, without calling paul's leadership or integrity into question. I realize that it might be difficult for you to do so, but please do make an effort. --srs (htc one x) On 27 July 2013 3:44:11 PM parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 27 July 2013 02:55 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Pardon me Parminder, but where exactly is the "scandal"? It would help > if you could explain what position you are taking. > > Paul (and Nick) > > What is the scandal here? Well, I can give a long response and then we can > keep arguing over it. And I dont think this is a point that I consider open > for arguments. So I will give a short one, even at the risk of sounding > blunt for which I apologise in advance. If you dont see a scandal here, > either you dont understand democracy or you dont value it. Period. > > (I am further sorry that you have these views since you are also the chair > of the so-called Asia Pacific regional IGF. Shows how deep the malaise has > gone, while Nero plays on his flute.) > > BYW, would you allow the parliament of Australia, or even the public > assemblies at your local town hall, to get corporatised in this manner? I > mean, poor financial conditions of governments can always be cited as the > convenient reason. > > parminder > > > > > > This organising committee has been "delegated" the task of hosting the > IGF, and simply cannot raise the funds through donations. The Government > has been unable to contribute (recently declining yet again, and proposing > to cancel the event); and the UN, far from supporting the event > financially, requires substantial costs to be paid for secure, staff, > travel and other. > > > > The Indonesian committee is a multistakeholder grouping, including > industry and community. They are unable to attract donations, so they are > proposing, it seems, to attract funding by providing some traditional > "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a > rather standard sponsorship arrangement. > > > > As far as I am aware there has been no clearance given from anyone for > this particular approach; so I assume it is still a "proposal". For a > hard-working committee, which has been more-or-less cut adrift, this kind > of additional fund-raising work was not expected, on top of the big job of > making the event happen. They are largely alone and trying to do their > best, to support an event which is supposed to be inclusive and supportive > of new modes of organisation, yet support seems to be sadly lacking. > > > > Rather than cries of "scandal" I'm sure that constructive contributions > would be far more welcomed, by those who are actually doing the work. > > > > Paul. > > > > > > > > On 27/07/2013, at 5:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > > >> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to > see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' of the managing committee > of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal.... > >> > >> Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend speakers > in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to high level > meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of them), special > promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the website, on the daily IGF > bulletin, on various equipment in the venue and many other things..... > Government can make donations and in return "may lead a session in the IGF > and be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events....." > >> > >> Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public > policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I want to > have nothing to do with it. > >> > >> Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly knew > about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the 2013 IGF was > being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is it that they actively > promoted it? (For a start the civil society members in the MAG who are on > this list may please clarify.) Who authorised selling off the global IG > policy dialogue space in this way... Does this correspond to the ground > rules of a UN convened and run event which in my understanding the IGF > continues to be. > >> > >> It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF... At > the WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a government > hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be accomplished. And done without > people getting a whiff or it, what to say, a public discussion.. I have > seen many problematic changes inside the MAG-IGF structure over the last > year or so, which are aimed at a kind of capture, but this one simply takes > the cake. > >> > >> Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue. > >> > >> (As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government > showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat, UNDESA or > whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private group, even if under > government’s weak tutelage. They should have offered it to other > governments, one of which would certainly have taken the offer. What has > happened is a natural flow from what is euphemistically called as a > multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF, largely free from UN and > governmental linkages. And this is what so many - including on this list - > have been promoting. It is basically a corporate controlled and run IGF ) > >> > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 07:48:33 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 23:48:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] Demands to IGF host nation and UNDESA over funding (was: Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali) In-Reply-To: <3EF2E042-A575-4B6A-9F40-18394EEC27EC@ciroap.org> References: <3EF2E042-A575-4B6A-9F40-18394EEC27EC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <601070E1-6740-4D3E-A804-C9A1D1B8C69F@gmail.com> I think this is an example of an entity seeing the value of the IGF and looking for positive ways to contribute. It also gives a sense of the financing aspects of the Indonesian IGF albeit incomplete and highlights how we can try to address the challenges. Sent from my iPad On Jul 27, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Forwarding with permission. Let's not dismiss these recommendations by dint of where they come from. I would like to see us discussing and supporting them if appropriate. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Patrick Ryan >> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali >> Date: 27 July 2013 12:56:37 PM GMT+08:00 >> To: "Smith, Bill" >> Cc: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" >> >> Dear all, >> >> As many of you know, the budget and funding issue has been a pet project of mine since February, and has been quite intense since I joined the MAG in May. It's a frustrating process because the way that the UN accounts for projects is not standard (they don't use GAAP accounting, for example), it's obscure, and the details are limited to donors. This makes it really complicated: there's no way to attract donors unless there is transparency, and even when one becomes a donor, there is still much to be desired. I'll spare further soap-boxing on this point for another day, but offer some of the following facts for the community. I don't claim to understand all of this nor have any of us verified them, but at this point sharing them is the only thing that I can see as a path towards resolution. We have two concrete asks that we think can be helpful. >> >> #1, Request for ID-IGF: tell us what number is needed. >> The organization in Indonesia that is now sponsoring the IGF is ID-IGF, and their fundraising brochure is here. It's actually a $2m total figure (although we've also heard $2.5), but the source for the $2m number is on p. 8 ("The overall fundraising target for hosting the IGF in 2013 is USD $1,966,560.20") There are certainly many things that can be reduced, as Vint mentions. Thus, we ask ID-IGF to provide us with a bottom-line number on what they need to raise to move forward. >> >> #2, Request for UNDESA: clear the path for Tides. As of right now, if any individual wants to fund the IGF, they need an individual contract with UNDESA to do so. That is a complicated process and does not scale (it took Google more than six months to negotiate the contract last year). While crowdsourcing would be wonderful, it's completely impossible. We have a proposed solution, but it is stalled. We propose working with Tides.org, a non-profit that can aggregate funds. Through Tides, we could set up a simple website and crowdsource. Here is my email about Tides as sent to donors and MAG in Feb and in May, and here the actual Tides proposal that Tides sent to the IGF. Our request to UNDESA: clear the path for the Tides proposal so that crowdsourcing can be enabled (UNDESA and Tides have met various times and have exchanged documents, but after five months, it is still open, but should be able to wrap quickly). >> >> #3, Request for UNDESA: share the budget details with the community. We've asked many times for more transparency in the budget, as noted above. I've documented this request with UN officials as well. It's crucial and not at all controversial in government entities, and it's fundamental to create trust and attract further donors. We've asked UNDESA to share that and think it's important that it be acted upon. Request for UNDESA: share the overall budget details on the IGF with the community, both for the IGF activities and for in-country budgets. >> >> These requests are straightforward but we'll need the community to support us if you agree. >> >> Patrick >> >> ------ >> patrick ryan >> public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations >> patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346 >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Smith, Bill wrote: >>> ... and I don't believe we have ever been able to get what in business we might call a reasonable budget. Large-scale events like the IGF are expensive and a figure of 2.5mm USD is not unreasonable. I can also state the 900k USD figure for UN "security and support" is in line with estimates I have hear bandied about. I have also been told that those costs are unavoidable for a UN event. >>> >>> I, and I expect many others, would consider an attendance fee quite acceptable. Of course there will be issues that would have to be addressed but they are manageable. Perhaps tomorrow will be a better day. >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:23 PM, "Vint Cerf" wrote: >>> >>>> the numbers i have are not quite that favorable. I have been told the target is $2.5M and that the Indonesian ISP Alliance has raised $900K of that leaving a shortfall of $1.6M. I don't have adequate breakout to know what is included in these figures. In Azerbaijan, the government apparently tried to pay for all the food and maybe we could ask the attendees to pay an attendance fee to cover that? Until there is more clarity as to out of pocket expense for the venue, networking, other services, it will be hard to raise funds, I think. >>>> >>>> >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >>>>> Wyn, >>>>> >>>>> the consideration that good and trusted friend Peng Hwa conveys is contained (having read him) in my question re unreasonable demands by the UN - and it sure looks like one! >>>>> >>>>> It's very tempting to second-guess what is going on, it's sure the full truth may never out, there does seem to be a lot of mischief and games going on... so let's keep a watchful eye. >>>>> >>>>> One sure thing we will need to do is more transparency in the use of this kind of funds and to understand whether such a bill can be justified and accepted at all. Keep in mind for the right time. >>>>> >>>>> 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: internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org [internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Winthrop Yu [w.yu at gmx.net] >>>>> Enviado el: viernes, 26 de julio de 2013 18:17 >>>>> Hasta: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org >>>>> Asunto: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali >>>>> >>>>> In that vein Dr. Alejandro, the numbers show that the Indonesian organizers >>>>> had already successfully raised US$1.15M, a not insubstantial amount. Yes, >>>>> there is still a shortfall of US$1.05M. But it seems to me that without that >>>>> single $900K expense item (mentioned by Prof. Ang below), then the Indons are >>>>> already very close (only $105K remaining) to meeting their target budget? >>>>> >>>>> WYn >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* >>>> > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50 >>>>> > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled >>>>> > To: "program at ... >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Folks, >>>>> > >>>>> > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. >>>>> > The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a >>>>> > businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group. >>>>> > >>>>> > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at >>>>> > >>>>> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > Use Google translate and you will be able to read. >>>>> > >>>>> > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking for >>>>> > possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we concluded that >>>>> > they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there were some >>>>> > possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many. >>>>> > >>>>> > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they >>>>> > had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of >>>>> > US$1.05M. >>>>> > >>>>> > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said that >>>>> > one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel and >>>>> > security apparatus to the meeting. >>>>> > >>>>> > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more >>>>> > complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for >>>>> > Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not win, >>>>> > what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting in the >>>>> > same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's stage at >>>>> > that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose ministry >>>>> > oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of those series >>>>> > of unfortunate events. >>>>> > >>>>> > Regards, >>>>> > Peng Hwa >>>>> > >>>>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may >>>>> > be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please >>>>> > delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. >>>>> > >>>>> > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Rigf_program mailing list >>>>> > Rigf_program at ... >>>> > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/27/2013 4:12 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >>>>> > Hi all, >>>>> > >>>>> > for all I know ISOC and ICANN already make substantial monetary contributions to >>>>> > the IGF, in different forms. They have been key all over the years. >>>>> > >>>>> > I am glad to see that Google is making a commitment of the right size - enough >>>>> > of a fraction of the total cost to be significant, a real commitment, and also >>>>> > leaving enough space for others to co-own the sustainability of the IGF. >>>>> > >>>>> > I regret that this situation can also be seen as a victory for extortion - >>>>> > parties not honoring their initial expected commitments finding someone to pay >>>>> > for that - and think that we will need to understand the details better (was the >>>>> > UN demanding too much or something unfair? were the parties in Indonesia missing >>>>> > their targets?) in order to judge and to manage this into the future. >>>>> > >>>>> > It remains to be seen whether the extortion worked, or an honest deal is >>>>> > stricken, in Indonesia or elsewhere, and the result will help distill who is >>>>> > actually committed to an open IGF and who may be not so. Certainly Google's >>>>> > contribution has to be welcomed and one would hope that it starts a sort of >>>>> > bidding process in which parties compete to complete the support the ITF needs. >>>>> > Much remains to be sorted out. >>>>> > >>>>> > But it is undeniable good news that there is a way to provide sustainability to >>>>> > the IGF from a multistakeholder set of contributions, and for now I'll reserve >>>>> > all other judgment and celebrate! >>>>> > >>>>> > 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 >>>>> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >> https://portal.isoc.org/ >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jul 27 08:01:00 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 14:01:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Markus Kummer in the situation Re: IGF Bali Message-ID: <20130727140100.7993cca2@quill> Datum: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:32:09 +0000 Von: Markus Kummer An: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" Betreff: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali Dear all, It is great to see so much enthusiasm around the IGF! We all agree that the IGF needs a more solid financial base - but the current model should be maintained insofar as the funding should go to the central operation and not to the host countries! Patrick made some good points, especially as regards cluster funding. This really ought to be pursued further. Having said that, I feel that it is necessary to take a step back and to look at some of the basic facts. First of all, the UN has not received any official confirmation that Indonesia is withdrawing its offer to host the 2013 IGF. The UN has accepted the offer, but it has not yet issued an invitation to the event. The Under-Secretary-General of the UN is the convenor of the meeting, on behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with the Tunis Agenda. Only he would be able to cancel the event. However, cancelling is not an option. Currently, the UN in New York is in touch with the Indonesian authorities at various levels to find out whether they are willing to honour their commitment to host the 2013 IGF. I made the point at yesterday's MAG call that bailing out the Indonesian organizing committee would create a moral hazard. Nick picked up this point - it would indeed be a dangerous precedent that in the end might weaken the IGF instead of strengthening it. Hosting an IGF meeting is a considerable effort, both in terms of workload as well as in terms of funding. We do not have the figure of how much each host country has spent in the past, but estimates vary between USD 2-3 Millions. This should be no surprise to the Indonesian hosts as the IGF Secretariat had explained to them the obligations of a host country as early as in 2010. It seems that the organizing committee was not able to deliver. The question now is who should bail them out - the Indonesian Government or the international community? The missing USD 1 Million is peanuts for a major economy such as Indonesia - if the Government is not willing to come up with that kind of money then it is clear that there is no political support to host the meeting. Again, as Nick pointed out, shifting a UN meeting back to HQ or to another venue would not be a first - this has happened before and it never was the end of the world. I fully understand that there would be a considerable amount of discomfort related to changing travel arrangements and maybe loosing money on cheap non refundable tickets. However, good news is that we have serious expressions of interest from other potential host countries. The budget transparency has been with us for some time. This is a complex issue and we should avoid mixing apples with pears. There is on the one hand the Trust Fund that finances the Secretariat and, on the other hand, the budget of the host country. Both budgets are part of proprietary agreements between the UN and the donor or the host country, respectively. They can only be disclosed if all Parties to the Agreement agree to do so. The UN may be bureaucratic, but whatever UN staff do is based on rules and regulations set forth by UN Member States. There is simply no point in discussing whether these rules are too cumbersome or not. Hosting a UN event away from Headquarters follows rules based on Resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly - that is the UN's highest legislative authority. These rules are not negotiable. The basic principle is that the extra costs arising from hosting a meeting away from UN Headquarters need to be funded by the Host Country. These costs include funding transport and per diem for UN staff, such as interpreters, security personnel, secretariat and other technical staff. For staff that need to be replaced at HQ (e.g. security personnel, interpreters) it also includes so-called replacement costs (that is to pay for the people who replace those who went to the conference). It is obvious that these costs vary greatly from venue to venue. Nairobi, for instance, is a UN HQ which brings down the cost, as no security personnel or interpreters need to be flown in. Indonesia will invariably more expensive, as most UN staff would need to be flown in. The Host Country has the option of transferring all the funds directly to the UN or assuming some of the costs directly, such as paying for flight tickets and hotel rooms. The UN asks the host country to provide transport from airport to hotels and hotels to venue. It is up to the host country to decide how generous it wants to be with providing free meals and other extras - but that is not a requirement. The standard Host Country Agreement provides the legal framework for the meeting. It puts the UN flag over the meeting and guarantees diplomatic immunity to all participants for any word spoken or written in the context of the meeting. For understandable reasons, this fundamental right is not negotiable. The IGF, with its open door policy, has expanded this notion of diplomatic immunity well beyond the boundaries of what is usually accepted by UN conferences. Any participant with "proven expertise and experience" is accepted without an onerous accreditation process, as it is normally the case for ECOSOC accreditation and other UN conferences. This is a huge accomplishment in terms of furthering multistakeholder cooperation under the UN flag. Putting up with UN rules and regulations is a prize worth paying for this! To cut a long story short: let's stay calm and see whether Indonesia is ready to abide by some of these basic principles and willing to fund the IGF. If they can explain with a reasonable and reasoned budget where the shortfalls are, then we can see whether there is any need for the international community to chip in - but, as I said earlier to some of you: we are not there yet! I do hope that in the end we will go to Bali - but at the same time we should keep all the options open and be ready to shift to another venue. Best regards Markus -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jul 27 08:01:40 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 07:01:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd:[Internet Policy] IGF Bali Message-ID: In case you have not seen this, I think it is important to share this discussion and information: Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Markus Kummer Date: Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:32 AM Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali To: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" Dear all, It is great to see so much enthusiasm around the IGF! We all agree that the IGF needs a more solid financial base - but the current model should be maintained insofar as the funding should go to the central operation and not to the host countries! Patrick made some good points, especially as regards cluster funding. This really ought to be pursued further. Having said that, I feel that it is necessary to take a step back and to look at some of the basic facts. First of all, the UN has not received any official confirmation that Indonesia is withdrawing its offer to host the 2013 IGF. The UN has accepted the offer, but it has not yet issued an invitation to the event. The Under-Secretary-General of the UN is the convenor of the meeting, on behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with the Tunis Agenda. Only he would be able to cancel the event. However, cancelling is not an option. Currently, the UN in New York is in touch with the Indonesian authorities at various levels to find out whether they are willing to honour their commitment to host the 2013 IGF. I made the point at yesterday's MAG call that bailing out the Indonesian organizing committee would create a moral hazard. Nick picked up this point - it would indeed be a dangerous precedent that in the end might weaken the IGF instead of strengthening it. Hosting an IGF meeting is a considerable effort, both in terms of workload as well as in terms of funding. We do not have the figure of how much each host country has spent in the past, but estimates vary between USD 2-3 Millions. This should be no surprise to the Indonesian hosts as the IGF Secretariat had explained to them the obligations of a host country as early as in 2010. It seems that the organizing committee was not able to deliver. The question now is who should bail them out - the Indonesian Government or the international community? The missing USD 1 Million is peanuts for a major economy such as Indonesia - if the Government is not willing to come up with that kind of money then it is clear that there is no political support to host the meeting. Again, as Nick pointed out, shifting a UN meeting back to HQ or to another venue would not be a first - this has happened before and it never was the end of the world. I fully understand that there would be a considerable amount of discomfort related to changing travel arrangements and maybe loosing money on cheap non refundable tickets. However, good news is that we have serious expressions of interest from other potential host countries. The budget transparency has been with us for some time. This is a complex issue and we should avoid mixing apples with pears. There is on the one hand the Trust Fund that finances the Secretariat and, on the other hand, the budget of the host country. Both budgets are part of proprietary agreements between the UN and the donor or the host country, respectively. They can only be disclosed if all Parties to the Agreement agree to do so. The UN may be bureaucratic, but whatever UN staff do is based on rules and regulations set forth by UN Member States. There is simply no point in discussing whether these rules are too cumbersome or not. Hosting a UN event away from Headquarters follows rules based on Resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly - that is the UN's highest legislative authority. These rules are not negotiable. The basic principle is that the extra costs arising from hosting a meeting away from UN Headquarters need to be funded by the Host Country. These costs include funding transport and per diem for UN staff, such as interpreters, security personnel, secretariat and other technical staff. For staff that need to be replaced at HQ (e.g. security personnel, interpreters) it also includes so-called replacement costs (that is to pay for the people who replace those who went to the conference). It is obvious that these costs vary greatly from venue to venue. Nairobi, for instance, is a UN HQ which brings down the cost, as no security personnel or interpreters need to be flown in. Indonesia will invariably more expensive, as most UN staff would need to be flown in. The Host Country has the option of transferring all the funds directly to the UN or assuming some of the costs directly, such as paying for flight tickets and hotel rooms. The UN asks the host country to provide transport from airport to hotels and hotels to venue. It is up to the host country to decide how generous it wants to be with providing free meals and other extras - but that is not a requirement. The standard Host Country Agreement provides the legal framework for the meeting. It puts the UN flag over the meeting and guarantees diplomatic immunity to all participants for any word spoken or written in the context of the meeting. For understandable reasons, this fundamental right is not negotiable. The IGF, with its open door policy, has expanded this notion of diplomatic immunity well beyond the boundaries of what is usually accepted by UN conferences. Any participant with "proven expertise and experience" is accepted without an onerous accreditation process, as it is normally the case for ECOSOC accreditation and other UN conferences. This is a huge accomplishment in terms of furthering multistakeholder cooperation under the UN flag. Putting up with UN rules and regulations is a prize worth paying for this! To cut a long story short: let's stay calm and see whether Indonesia is ready to abide by some of these basic principles and willing to fund the IGF. If they can explain with a reasonable and reasoned budget where the shortfalls are, then we can see whether there is any need for the international community to chip in - but, as I said earlier to some of you: we are not there yet! I do hope that in the end we will go to Bali - but at the same time we should keep all the options open and be ready to shift to another venue. Best regards Markus On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Patrick, > > Thank you for providing this much information as it makes things clearer; looking at the budget, I also agree there are way lots of things that can be reduced as I see that almost half of the budget is relatively for personnel stuff (including the hotel accommodation). > This brings me to ask; why should an event host bear such a huge cost burden towards the UN? Can't the UN also take charge of some of the responsibilities as I believe they should also have budget for this. > Nevertheless, I am not saying all these to defend the host as I also expect that the host knows the current normal drills to hosting an IGF before agreeing to host such an event. IGF Bali is not the first and if Bali is raising this funding concerns, then I will say it's unfortunate. A host country that cannot guarantee at least a 50% funding by her government towards an IGF event budget, should not be granted the hosting rights. > As things stands now, it's just like world is at the mercy of the host :-) > A word to the IGF secretariat is for them handle the situation in a way that will ensure that the future hosting of IGF will be protected from an experience as this. Raising funds now(like the $5 page earlier suggested) to save this may the useful, however it could also create an impression to future hosts and overall determine the life span of igf conferences itself. > sent from Google nexus 4 > > On 27 Jul 2013 05:57, "Patrick Ryan" wrote: > Dear all, > > As many of you know, the budget and funding issue has been a pet project of mine since February, and has been quite intense since I joined the MAG in May. It's a frustrating process because the way that the UN accounts for projects is not standard (they don't use GAAP accounting, for example), it's obscure, and the details are limited to donors. This makes it really complicated: there's no way to attract donors unless there is transparency, and even when one becomes a donor, there is still much to be desired. I'll spare further soap-boxing on this point for another day, but offer some of the following facts for the community. I don't claim to understand all of this nor have any of us verified them, but at this point sharing them is the only thing that I can see as a path towards resolution. We have two concrete asks that we think can be helpful. > > #1, Request for ID-IGF: tell us what number is needed. > The organization in Indonesia that is now sponsoring the IGF is ID-IGF, and their fundraising brochure is here. It's actually a $2m total figure (although we've also heard $2.5), but the source for the $2m number is on p. 8 ("The overall fundraising target for hosting the IGF in 2013 is USD $1,966,560.20") There are certainly many things that can be reduced, as Vint mentions. Thus, we ask ID-IGF to provide us with a bottom-line number on what they need to raise to move forward. > > #2, Request for UNDESA: clear the path for Tides. As of right now, if any individual wants to fund the IGF, they need an individual contract with UNDESA to do so. That is a complicated process and does not scale (it took Google more than six months to negotiate the contract last year). While crowdsourcing would be wonderful, it's completely impossible. We have a proposed solution, but it is stalled. We propose working with Tides.org, a non-profit that can aggregate funds. Through Tides, we could set up a simple website and crowdsource. Here is my email about Tides as sent to donors and MAG in Feb and in May, and here the actual Tides proposal that Tides sent to the IGF. Our request to UNDESA: clear the path for the Tides proposal so that crowdsourcing can be enabled (UNDESA and Tides have met various times and have exchanged documents, but after five months, it is still open, but should be able to wrap quickly). > > #3, Request for UNDESA: share the budget details with the community. We've asked many times for more transparency in the budget, as noted above. I've documented this request with UN officials as well. It's crucial and not at all controversial in government entities, and it's fundamental to create trust and attract further donors. We've asked UNDESA to share that and think it's important that it be acted upon. Request for UNDESA: share the overall budget details on the IGF with the community, both for the IGF activities and for in-country budgets. > > These requests are straightforward but we'll need the community to support us if you agree. > > Patrick > > ------ > patrick ryan > public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations > patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346 > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Smith, Bill wrote: > ... and I don't believe we have ever been able to get what in business we might call a reasonable budget. Large-scale events like the IGF are expensive and a figure of 2.5mm USD is not unreasonable. I can also state the 900k USD figure for UN "security and support" is in line with estimates I have hear bandied about. I have also been told that those costs are unavoidable for a UN event. > > I, and I expect many others, would consider an attendance fee quite acceptable. Of course there will be issues that would have to be addressed but they are manageable. Perhaps tomorrow will be a better day. > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:23 PM, "Vint Cerf" wrote: > >> the numbers i have are not quite that favorable. I have been told the target is $2.5M and that the Indonesian ISP Alliance has raised $900K of that leaving a shortfall of $1.6M. I don't have adequate breakout to know what is included in these figures. In Azerbaijan, the government apparently tried to pay for all the food and maybe we could ask the attendees to pay an attendance fee to cover that? Until there is more clarity as to out of pocket expense for the venue, networking, other services, it will be hard to raise funds, I think. >> >> >> v >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan at unam.mx> wrote: >> Wyn, >> >> the consideration that good and trusted friend Peng Hwa conveys is contained (having read him) in my question re unreasonable demands by the UN - and it sure looks like one! >> >> It's very tempting to second-guess what is going on, it's sure the full truth may never out, there does seem to be a lot of mischief and games going on... so let's keep a watchful eye. >> >> One sure thing we will need to do is more transparency in the use of this kind of funds and to understand whether such a bill can be justified and accepted at all. Keep in mind for the right time. >> >> 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: internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org [ internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Winthrop Yu [ w.yu at gmx.net] >> Enviado el: viernes, 26 de julio de 2013 18:17 >> Hasta: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org >> Asunto: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali >> >> In that vein Dr. Alejandro, the numbers show that the Indonesian organizers >> had already successfully raised US$1.15M, a not insubstantial amount. Yes, >> there is still a shortfall of US$1.05M. But it seems to me that without that >> single $900K expense item (mentioned by Prof. Ang below), then the Indons are >> already very close (only $105K remaining) to meeting their target budget? >> >> WYn >> >> >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* > > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50 >> > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled >> > To: "program at ... > > > > >> > >> > Folks, >> > >> > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. >> > The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a >> > businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group. >> > >> > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at >> > >> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali . >> >> > >> > Use Google translate and you will be able to read. >> > >> > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking for >> > possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we concluded that >> > they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there were some >> > possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many. >> > >> > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they >> > had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of >> > US$1.05M. >> > >> > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said that >> > one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel and >> > security apparatus to the meeting. >> > >> > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more >> > complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for >> > Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not win, >> > what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting in the >> > same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's stage at >> > that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose ministry >> > oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of those series >> > of unfortunate events. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Peng Hwa >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may >> > be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please >> > delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. >> > >> > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Rigf_program mailing list >> > Rigf_program at ... > > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program >> >> >> >> On 7/27/2013 4:12 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > for all I know ISOC and ICANN already make substantial monetary contributions to >> > the IGF, in different forms. They have been key all over the years. >> > >> > I am glad to see that Google is making a commitment of the right size - enough >> > of a fraction of the total cost to be significant, a real commitment, and also >> > leaving enough space for others to co-own the sustainability of the IGF. >> > >> > I regret that this situation can also be seen as a victory for extortion - >> > parties not honoring their initial expected commitments finding someone to pay >> > for that - and think that we will need to understand the details better (was the >> > UN demanding too much or something unfair? were the parties in Indonesia missing >> > their targets?) in order to judge and to manage this into the future. >> > >> > It remains to be seen whether the extortion worked, or an honest deal is >> > stricken, in Indonesia or elsewhere, and the result will help distill who is >> > actually committed to an open IGF and who may be not so. Certainly Google's >> > contribution has to be welcomed and one would hope that it starts a sort of >> > bidding process in which parties compete to complete the support the ITF needs. >> > Much remains to be sorted out. >> > >> > But it is undeniable good news that there is a way to provide sustainability to >> > the IGF from a multistakeholder set of contributions, and for now I'll reserve >> > all other judgment and celebrate! >> > >> > 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 Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 27 08:41:53 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:41:53 +1200 Subject: [governance] Markus Kummer in the situation Re: IGF Bali In-Reply-To: <20130727140100.7993cca2@quill> References: <20130727140100.7993cca2@quill> Message-ID: <2689493E-FC46-4B02-BDFD-4FED619550A6@gmail.com> Spoken with much wisdom and experience. Markus helps to put things in perspective, and in its proper context. Thanks Norbert. Sent from my iPad On Jul 28, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Datum: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:32:09 +0000 > Von: Markus Kummer > An: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" > Betreff: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali > > > Dear all, > > It is great to see so much enthusiasm around the IGF! We all agree > that the IGF needs a more solid financial base - but the current model > should be maintained insofar as the funding should go to the central > operation and not to the host countries! Patrick made some good points, > especially as regards cluster funding. This really ought to be pursued > further. Having said that, I feel that it is necessary to take a step > back and to look at some of the basic facts. First of all, the UN has > not received any official confirmation that Indonesia is withdrawing > its offer to host the 2013 IGF. The UN has accepted the offer, but it > has not yet issued an invitation to the event. The > Under-Secretary-General of the UN is the convenor of the meeting, on > behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with the Tunis Agenda. > Only he would be able to cancel the event. However, cancelling is not > an option. Currently, the UN in New York is in touch with the > Indonesian authorities at various levels to find out whether they are > willing to honour their commitment to host the 2013 IGF. I made the > point at yesterday's MAG call that bailing out the Indonesian > organizing committee would create a moral hazard. Nick picked up this > point - it would indeed be a dangerous precedent that in the end might > weaken the IGF instead of strengthening it. Hosting an IGF meeting is a > considerable effort, both in terms of workload as well as in terms of > funding. We do not have the figure of how much each host country has > spent in the past, but estimates vary between USD 2-3 Millions. This > should be no surprise to the Indonesian hosts as the IGF Secretariat > had explained to them the obligations of a host country as early as in > 2010. It seems that the organizing committee was not able to deliver. > The question now is who should bail them out - the Indonesian > Government or the international community? The missing USD 1 Million is > peanuts for a major economy such as Indonesia - if the Government is > not willing to come up with that kind of money then it is clear that > there is no political support to host the meeting. Again, as Nick > pointed out, shifting a UN meeting back to HQ or to another venue would > not be a first - this has happened before and it never was the end of > the world. I fully understand that there would be a considerable amount > of discomfort related to changing travel arrangements and maybe loosing > money on cheap non refundable tickets. However, good news is that we > have serious expressions of interest from other potential host > countries. The budget transparency has been with us for some time. This > is a complex issue and we should avoid mixing apples with pears. There > is on the one hand the Trust Fund that finances the Secretariat and, on > the other hand, the budget of the host country. Both budgets are part > of proprietary agreements between the UN and the donor or the host > country, respectively. They can only be disclosed if all Parties to the > Agreement agree to do so. The UN may be bureaucratic, but whatever UN > staff do is based on rules and regulations set forth by UN Member > States. There is simply no point in discussing whether these rules are > too cumbersome or not. Hosting a UN event away from Headquarters > follows rules based on Resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly - > that is the UN's highest legislative authority. These rules are not > negotiable. The basic principle is that the extra costs arising from > hosting a meeting away from UN Headquarters need to be funded by the > Host Country. These costs include funding transport and per diem for UN > staff, such as interpreters, security personnel, secretariat and other > technical staff. For staff that need to be replaced at HQ (e.g. > security personnel, interpreters) it also includes so-called > replacement costs (that is to pay for the people who replace those who > went to the conference). It is obvious that these costs vary greatly > from venue to venue. Nairobi, for instance, is a UN HQ which brings > down the cost, as no security personnel or interpreters need to be > flown in. Indonesia will invariably more expensive, as most UN staff > would need to be flown in. The Host Country has the option of > transferring all the funds directly to the UN or assuming some of the > costs directly, such as paying for flight tickets and hotel rooms. The > UN asks the host country to provide transport from airport to hotels > and hotels to venue. It is up to the host country to decide how > generous it wants to be with providing free meals and other extras - > but that is not a requirement. The standard Host Country Agreement > provides the legal framework for the meeting. It puts the UN flag over > the meeting and guarantees diplomatic immunity to all participants for > any word spoken or written in the context of the meeting. For > understandable reasons, this fundamental right is not negotiable. The > IGF, with its open door policy, has expanded this notion of diplomatic > immunity well beyond the boundaries of what is usually accepted by UN > conferences. Any participant with "proven expertise and experience" is > accepted without an onerous accreditation process, as it is normally > the case for ECOSOC accreditation and other UN conferences. This is a > huge accomplishment in terms of furthering multistakeholder cooperation > under the UN flag. Putting up with UN rules and regulations is a prize > worth paying for this! To cut a long story short: let's stay calm and > see whether Indonesia is ready to abide by some of these basic > principles and willing to fund the IGF. If they can explain with a > reasonable and reasoned budget where the shortfalls are, then we can > see whether there is any need for the international community to chip > in - but, as I said earlier to some of you: we are not there yet! I do > hope that in the end we will go to Bali - but at the same time we > should keep all the options open and be ready to shift to another > venue. Best regards Markus > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sat Jul 27 08:49:21 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 08:49:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <523B8E0D-A325-47A6-BBE4-7B154481BDA9@post.harvard.edu> On Jul 27, 2013, at 5:25 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > ... where exactly is the "scandal"? Whatever name we put to it, when program content is up for sale, IGF has descended to the most tawdry level of pandering. _That_ we think will gain respect around the world ...? Let's get our thinking back on track. If it has come to this, better to cancel. Or better, get back to insisting on a sound funding basis - not, "give us money, and your message will get precedence." The _whole_ point is a process with integrity, where ideas stand or fall on merit. Not on money paid. David -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Sat Jul 27 10:12:56 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 17:12:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Markus Kummer in the situation Re: IGF Bali In-Reply-To: <20130727140100.7993cca2@quill> References: <20130727140100.7993cca2@quill> Message-ID: That is a statement from somebody who has been in the center of all things IGF from the beginning. Thank you Norbert for sharing. >From Markus Kummer's statement, it is clear that the IGF will go on despite all the hitches, even if not in Bali. Interesting to note is, Indonesia has a GDP fifteen times bigger than that of Kenya, while Kenya was able to host a successful event, to the point of begging participants to ignore cynical security concerns and attend. This might mean that there is no political willingness for Indonesia to host the event, or they are playing machavelian tactics to see what they might get out of their lukewarmness. Regards -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 11:14:59 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:14:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] Markus Kummer in the situation Re: IGF Bali In-Reply-To: References: <20130727140100.7993cca2@quill> Message-ID: My professional experience with UN and Govt leads my to say that I seems that upcoming IGF event lack of political will from Govt now. They should have point out this in 2010, instead now, use of media to spread out news is also a part of strategy of govt, they should have informed UN through formal contact. Pl. this is my professional option on the subject. Regards ------- *Stay Connected* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 27 July 2013 19:12, Kivuva wrote: > That is a statement from somebody who has been in the center of all > things IGF from the beginning. Thank you Norbert for sharing. > > From Markus Kummer's statement, it is clear that the IGF will go on > despite all the hitches, even if not in Bali. > > Interesting to note is, Indonesia has a GDP fifteen times bigger than > that of Kenya, while Kenya was able to host a successful event, to the > point of begging participants to ignore cynical security concerns and > attend. This might mean that there is no political willingness for > Indonesia to host the event, or they are playing machavelian tactics > to see what they might get out of their lukewarmness. > > Regards > > -- > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva > twitter.com/lordmwesh > kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jul 27 11:45:16 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:45:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F39D73.3040100@itforchange.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F39D73.3040100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0000014020ce2a14-27729e87-8097-4550-9f01-d7d3412c8e46-000000@email.amazonses.com> I have no idea why I'm being mentioned (assuming I'm the Nick in question) on this thread, as I didn't comment on it. On 27 Jul 2013, at 12:14, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 27 July 2013 02:55 PM, Paul Wilson wrote: >> Pardon me Parminder, but where exactly is the "scandal"? It would help if you could explain what position you are taking. > > Paul (and Nick) > > What is the scandal here? Well, I can give a long response and then we can keep arguing over it. And I dont think this is a point that I consider open for arguments. So I will give a short one, even at the risk of sounding blunt for which I apologise in advance. If you dont see a scandal here, either you dont understand democracy or you dont value it. Period. > > (I am further sorry that you have these views since you are also the chair of the so-called Asia Pacific regional IGF. Shows how deep the malaise has gone, while Nero plays on his flute.) > > BYW, would you allow the parliament of Australia, or even the public assemblies at your local town hall, to get corporatised in this manner? I mean, poor financial conditions of governments can always be cited as the convenient reason. > > parminder > > >> >> This organising committee has been "delegated" the task of hosting the IGF, and simply cannot raise the funds through donations. The Government has been unable to contribute (recently declining yet again, and proposing to cancel the event); and the UN, far from supporting the event financially, requires substantial costs to be paid for secure, staff, travel and other. >> >> The Indonesian committee is a multistakeholder grouping, including industry and community. They are unable to attract donations, so they are proposing, it seems, to attract funding by providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement. >> >> As far as I am aware there has been no clearance given from anyone for this particular approach; so I assume it is still a "proposal". For a hard-working committee, which has been more-or-less cut adrift, this kind of additional fund-raising work was not expected, on top of the big job of making the event happen. They are largely alone and trying to do their best, to support an event which is supposed to be inclusive and supportive of new modes of organisation, yet support seems to be sadly lacking. >> >> Rather than cries of "scandal" I'm sure that constructive contributions would be far more welcomed, by those who are actually doing the work. >> >> Paul. >> >> >> >> On 27/07/2013, at 5:42 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal.... >>> >>> Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend speakers in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to high level meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of them), special promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the website, on the daily IGF bulletin, on various equipment in the venue and many other things..... Government can make donations and in return "may lead a session in the IGF and be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events....." >>> >>> Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I want to have nothing to do with it. >>> >>> Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly knew about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the 2013 IGF was being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is it that they actively promoted it? (For a start the civil society members in the MAG who are on this list may please clarify.) Who authorised selling off the global IG policy dialogue space in this way... Does this correspond to the ground rules of a UN convened and run event which in my understanding the IGF continues to be. >>> >>> It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF... At the WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a government hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be accomplished. And done without people getting a whiff or it, what to say, a public discussion.. I have seen many problematic changes inside the MAG-IGF structure over the last year or so, which are aimed at a kind of capture, but this one simply takes the cake. >>> >>> Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue. >>> >>> (As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat, UNDESA or whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private group, even if under government’s weak tutelage. They should have offered it to other governments, one of which would certainly have taken the offer. What has happened is a natural flow from what is euphemistically called as a multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF, largely free from UN and governmental linkages. And this is what so many - including on this list - have been promoting. It is basically a corporate controlled and run IGF ) >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 11:48:28 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:48:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:13 AM, parminder wrote: > > Such a proposal for using ICANN collected funds to support the IGF was put > forward in the WG on IGF Improvements by my organisation as well as by > India, and supported by developing countries. Why did other non gov > stakeholders (including civil society) and developed countries oppose this > proposal.... Can at least the civil society members of that group who are > on this list explain.... I can see why private sector or corporate funded > technical community did not want it... can also see the agenda of US > supporting developed country constituency.... but why did civil society > oppose it... If the IGF is really their most loved child... > Hi Parminder! As a participant on the WG on IGF improvements, I would just like to comment on what I recall from memory: - The issue of allocating sustainable and predictable public UN funding to the IGF was tabled and discussed among members despite the time constraints we had. As I remember, most CS representatives, including myself, supported this proposal of UN public funding (meaning: public UN funding and private voluntary funding should coexist). As you said, there was strong opposition and the proposal was not included in the report. But we must also acknowledge that UN posed main obstacles to that. UNDESA came to one of our meetings with the purpose to tell us that it was fruitless to put forth such a proposal (UN funding), because UN funds were being cut all across the board. If the UN executes decisions of member countries, maybe it is also fair to say that countries that support UN public funding for the IGF also lacked political articulation and let DESA "impose" that line on the group, saying it was an "impossible topic". Sometimes it seems to me that no one wants to put more money (either because they dont believe in the importance of the IGF or because current lack of transparency on fund management - a real big problem - prevents them from willing to commit). It is a vicious cycle and a blame-game. - If I remember correctly, the proposal to use ICANN funds to support the IGF was not properly discussed in the group. When the proposal was tabled, the group started to dwell on procedural issues: if the group had competence to propose it, if the UN had legitimacy to propose it, if it was juridically feasible to propose it, if we could propose it in a group in which ICANN was not represented, etc... Some group members were openly against it, but, to my understanding, this proposal did not get to be discussed in depth and substance, reason why I think it is not accurate to say that CS members were against it... Speaking on my own behalf: I needed more time to think and understand all the implications, but the discussion did not continue. I think (i dont remember exactly) the vehemency of opposition made clear that the group would not have consensus on that issue and, since the report was consensus-based, we moved on. Marília -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 27 13:36:42 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:36:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <523B8E0D-A325-47A6-BBE4-7B154481BDA9@post.harvard.edu> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <523B8E0D-A325-47A6-BBE4-7B154481BDA9@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:49 PM, David Allen < David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote: > On Jul 27, 2013, at 5:25 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > ... where exactly is the "scandal"? >> > > Whatever name we put to it, when program content is up for sale, IGF has > descended to the most tawdry level of pandering. > > _That_ we think will gain respect around the world ...? > > Let's get our thinking back on track. If it has come to this, better to > cancel. Or better, get back to insisting on a sound funding basis - not, > "give us money, and your message will get precedence." > > The _whole_ point is a process with integrity, where ideas stand or fall > on merit. Not on money paid. > > David > +1 Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Jul 27 13:41:39 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:41:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] follow-up on my RFC 6852 appeal Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Jul 27 14:14:09 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:14:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> Parminder wrote: > All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF Is there anyone who in view of the current debacle is still opposed to UN funding for the IGF? > but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding from ICANN > collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... Isn't that > the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from staist as > well corporate controls.... I am not sure that ICANN's collection of domain name taxes is the right funding model for anything (it presupposes that domain names are sold for a price which makes them quite unaffordable to a very significant number of poor people) but as long as ICANN's funding model remains as it currently is, in view of ICANN's financials [1], funding at least a significant part of the cost of IGF meetings from ICANN's budget indeed makes a lot of sense. [1] http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jul 27 14:28:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 23:58:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> Message-ID: Given marilla's email, this appears to be a nonstarter, and so, moot. And it sounds very strange if some people were to continuously disparage a community or organization on the one hand, and demand sponsorship money from them on the other, on the grounds that the amount involved is hardly a rounding error in their revenue (or even their ebitda), just saying. --srs (iPad) On 27-Jul-2013, at 23:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF > > Is there anyone who in view of the current debacle is still opposed to > UN funding for the IGF? > >> but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding from ICANN >> collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... Isn't that >> the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from staist as >> well corporate controls.... > > I am not sure that ICANN's collection of domain name taxes is the right > funding model for anything (it presupposes that domain names are sold > for a price which makes them quite unaffordable to a very significant > number of poor people) but as long as ICANN's funding model remains as > it currently is, in view of ICANN's financials [1], funding at least a > significant part of the cost of IGF meetings from ICANN's budget > indeed makes a lot of sense. > [1] http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 14:38:54 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:38:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] follow-up on my RFC 6852 appeal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 to polycracy. The way forward. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jul 27, 2013 6:42 PM, "JFC Morfin" wrote: > This is the "intermediary" report I sent to Russ Housley, IAB Chair. > Situation of the debate is maintained on http://architf.org by the IUCG > (English documents are listed, the French debate will progressively be). > The ball is now in our field, the ISOC/IAB/IETF playing (well) for the > private sector together with W3C and IEEE. The stability of the internet > calls for us and governements to complete equally. I hope we can? > jfc > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Russ, > > FYI, I conducted a few debates (in French) over the RFC 6852 appeal. > > > *I. general obsevations > > *They led me so far to observe some hints of rough consensus on: > > 1. concerns about the sovereignty concepts: how should they > multinationally articulate among different kinds of relational spaces. > > 2. parallel between the economy and cyberspace, money and data, value > and information. Same fundamental errors/achievements. Solutions for > one should benefit the other. > > 3. when faced with architectonic considerations, people more or less > concur that, > > - they are common fundamentals for cyberspace with different possible > architectures, the leading ones being Internet (OSI layers 1,2,3,4) > and Internet+ (OSI upper layers + services). > > - a common "esthetic" (as a targeted ideal) should be phrased for the > digisphere, i.e. our thinking and living in the world human + bots > ecosystem. > > - they never thought about it really, as they took the internet > options as the only ones possible and thought that the IAB was in charge. > > - RFC 6852 shows that the IAB is not, except for internet > architectural consistency, and that consistency results from a > compromise (no longer an absolute) "agreement [that] can be found > across a range of interests". > > - the different ranges of interests should be documented by each > stakeholder, in mutually comprehensible terms. Identifying these terms > is the first purpose of an architectonical debate. > > - no one has a real suggestion about preparing and holding such a > debate. It should be "democratic" but everyone fails to explain how it > could actually be held. > > - the right thing to target and carry out may not necessarily be > (multi)consensual. > > > *II. My personnal conclusions > > *My personal, general (convoluted!) feeling is that we are in: > > - an “n-bodies” dynamic universe, > > - hence in a timed n-logic context, > > - where money remains the main metric of reference for ordered exchanges, > > - only limited by sovereignty that may legitimately oppose strength > (law) and violence (war). > > 2.1. *fundamental issue*. > > The points above make something new, > - to integrate in technology, > - calling for an attractor (esthetic), > - and a technical development ethic (ethitechnic). > > 2.2. *way of addressing it > > *I call “agoric” the confluence of logics that, at the > probabilistically quantified layer that our environment is now daily > rooted in, no longer results in “*conclusions*” but rather in more or > less stable “*emergences*”. > > I presented in a preceding appeal the systemic topology that I > currently associate with the agoric polycentric space. I must also > note that I observe an apparent slow convergence of most scientists > and sciences over a century that one might reproduce through > artificial life like multiagent systems throughout the networks. > > 2.3. *the internet part > > *In the virtual cyberspace, of which our mental digisphere has to live > with, the internet is to: > > - provide data transport, > > - permit informational interoperability, > > - and support “body to body” communication. > > So far, through the IETF work on the Internet test-bed, we have identified: > > - that everything may change (RFC 1958) at any time, > > - coopetition among the different n-bodies may result in effillient > (efficient + resilient) synergy, in being stable in sending and open > in receiving (RFC 1122), > > - things work if they are simple (RFC 3439), > > - hence diversity is dealt with by subsidiarity (RFC 5895). > > 2.4. *Personal bias > > *I am most probably biased since: > > - the “agoric” concerns were at the root of the Tymshare/Tymnet > architecture, technology, and deployment, > > - as the communications layers’ pile concept was initiated by Michel > Elie (office mate of Jon Postel), rooted in the 1970s INRIA/CII, in my > local neighborhood, > > - my Tymnet’s job was to extend them into services matching the > international reality. > > - I further integrated these concepts in my R&D, experimentations, and > operations. > > This probably also explains why I am very strict against layer > violations by double constraints affecting the intelligence layers > that I have identified above the ISO model, which are out of the end > to end boundaries (in the fringe to fringe and up to the psy to psy areas). > > > *III. Conclusion? > > *This means that starting by way of an open, joint effort to explore > the architectonic of what I call polycracy might be worth considering. > For example as an IAB IRTF/IUTF/ITU/ISO/IGF/ISOC etc. oriented > initiative for a coherent digital esthetic and the way to ethically get at > it. > > > For what it is worth. > jfc > > _______________________________________________ > iutf mailing list > iutf at iutf.org > http://iutf.org/mailman/listinfo/iutf_iutf.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Jul 27 16:48:04 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:48:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Plan - B after IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <000001401f346c98-e850fd1a-b5db-4b34-97ee-45a9db1feefe-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <9nrm552w4hlcrfw42ba7bruq.1374809877172@email.android.com> <51F1F0BB.7080804@ciroap.org> <51F2B7D2.7020707@apc.org> <000001401f346c98-e850fd1a-b5db-4b34-97ee-45a9db1feefe-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jul 27, 2013 9:18 AM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" wrote: > > There have been many efforts for many years by many people and organisations to put the IGF on a sustainable financial footing but it wasn't enough of a priority for enough stakeholders to make it happen (being completely candid). > > My hope is that the current situation will actually end up with the prioritisation of a sustainable fix [Excellent] by enough stakeholders that it gets sorted out at last. > > On 26 Jul 2013, at 22:48, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> So the question is that how do stakeholders prevent such future crashes, second, what is plan B and third, why hasn't a sustainability mechanism evolved even six years after the IGF was started? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jul 27 18:20:58 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Markus Kummer in the situation Re: IGF Bali In-Reply-To: <2689493E-FC46-4B02-BDFD-4FED619550A6@gmail.com> References: <20130727140100.7993cca2@quill> <2689493E-FC46-4B02-BDFD-4FED619550A6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1374963658.81709.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> [Warning: this is a long email] Dear all Very many thanks to Markus Kummer, for putting things into focus. Coming from my background: Digital Solidarity Fund (Yes, that WSIS one), National IGF fundraiser and organiser, regional IGForganiser and fundraiser and continental IGForganiser and fundraiser...  I would like to share my thoughts and maybe chip in a few ideas for IGF going forward. 1. On the political front, we need to understand why countries bid/offer to host events.  These reasons will help us smell stuff upfront. Why did Indonesia bid to host the IGF?  As civil society, have we asked the IGF secretariat about the conditions for hosting an IGF. What exactly do host countries agree on? Is the "Standard Host Country Agreement" enough? Have we seen that agreement? Does  the host country share it within its "willing to host committee" before they bid? 2. What values do host countries get from IGF? As Markus says, 1 million $ is so tiny an amount for Indonesia that canceling a global meeting because of that amount is as fake  me growing a 1 meter long hair! 3. I do not know who put up the Fundraising Proposal. It is not a scandal,  but it just clearly shows that the people who drafted it do/did not understand what the IGF is and how it functions. Having said above that I have been in many levels of IGForganisation, I know first hand that the reasons that governments "accept" for hosting these events are some times ridiculous. 4. On the budget itself, I think it is not that huge and not that complicated. Organisers of IGF know that.  What I see from it is that a host country needs to think "Between 2 and 3 million $) as hosting cost. 5. The budget itself is in parts: a) venue and security. This seems to be the part tied up to the UN. b) Technical and multimedia. This part does not seem to be cast in stone c) logistics and general hospitality. Local transport and meals fall here. Nairobi did not do airport pick up and we paid for our visas on arrival? d) costs borne by participating organisations and individuals. This is actually the BIGGER amount that we seem not to be talking about here. 6. Having said all of the above, my gut feeling is that it has got to the "reality time" of events (organisers know this).  This is the time you realise that you may ACTUALLY need more money than you had originally budgeted for.  And you begin to question the value that the whole thing brings you.  The "is it worth all the trouble?" "Why did I get myself into this?" time. Between the time of the rumours and today, I have done more work on my "Bali" folder. I am one of those that believe IGF Bali will hold, after the question "Who will do the bail out?" must have been answered. Going forward: 1. To the UN, I will say to check the security ratings of the IGF meeting itself. Does it still need to be as high as the first sessions? 2. Definitely, I think the UN should fund the security part of the IGF. This makes it easier for host countries to concentrate on funding venue, logistics, and hospitality 3. It is okay for ICANN and other corporations to fund certain parts of the meeting, but my shot will be to clearly mark these out. The technical and multimedia, to me, appear to be the easiest entry. Since these are Service-Provider-related services. Contracting is easier when it happens B2B. I dont think ICANN should send funds to DESA for translation or other media services. 4. It is important for would-be hosting countries to understand how the budget plays out.  Security costs in Indonesia should not be compared to Nairobi, as Markus has clearly pointed out below. So the message is not that "The UN is requesting Indonesia to pay 900K$ for their staff and security" That message is wrong. The message is that "The Bali location will need 900K$" to satisfy the security and UN-functionality of the meeting." In closing this rather long email, I wll say that the budget hassle and tussle that is going on is not in itself a bad development. It only just shows that some more issues need to be discussed. I am certain that the MAG is learning the lessons and will use them well. And would-be host countries, and organisers too. Best of the weekend, 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: SalanietaTamanikaiwaimaro To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Norbert Bollow Cc: IGC Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Markus Kummer in the situation Re: IGF Bali Spoken with much wisdom and experience. Markus helps to put things in perspective, and in its proper context. Thanks Norbert. Sent from my iPad On Jul 28, 2013, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Datum: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:32:09 +0000 > Von: Markus Kummer > An: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" > Betreff: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali > > > Dear all, > > It is great to see so much enthusiasm around the IGF!  We all agree > that the IGF needs a more solid financial base - but the current model > should be maintained insofar as the funding should go to the central > operation and not to the host countries! Patrick made some good points, > especially as regards cluster funding. This really ought to be pursued > further. Having said that, I feel that it is necessary to take a step > back and to look at some of the basic facts. First of all, the UN has > not received any official confirmation that Indonesia is withdrawing > its offer to host the 2013 IGF. The UN has accepted the offer, but it > has not yet issued an invitation to the event. The > Under-Secretary-General of the UN is the convenor of the meeting, on > behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with the Tunis Agenda. > Only he would be able to cancel the event. However, cancelling is not > an option. Currently, the UN in New York is in touch with the > Indonesian authorities at various levels to find out whether they are > willing to honour their commitment to host the 2013 IGF. I made the > point at yesterday's MAG call that bailing out the Indonesian > organizing committee would create a moral hazard. Nick picked up this > point - it would indeed be a dangerous precedent that in the end might > weaken the IGF instead of strengthening it. Hosting an IGF meeting is a > considerable effort, both in terms of workload as well as in terms of > funding. We do not have the figure of how much each host country has > spent in the past, but estimates vary between USD 2-3 Millions. This > should be no surprise to the Indonesian hosts as the IGF Secretariat > had explained to them the obligations of a host country as early as in > 2010. It seems that the organizing committee was not able to deliver. > The question now is who should bail them out - the Indonesian > Government or the international community? The missing USD 1 Million is > peanuts for a major economy such as Indonesia - if the Government is > not willing to come up with that kind of money then it is clear that > there is no political support to host the meeting. Again, as Nick > pointed out, shifting a UN meeting back to HQ or to another venue would > not be a first - this has happened before and it never was the end of > the world. I fully understand that there would be a considerable amount > of discomfort related to changing travel arrangements and maybe loosing > money on cheap non refundable tickets. However, good news is that we > have serious expressions of interest from other potential host > countries. The budget transparency has been with us for some time. This > is a complex issue and we should avoid mixing apples with pears. There > is on the one hand the Trust Fund that finances the Secretariat and, on > the other hand, the budget of the host country. Both budgets are part > of proprietary agreements between the UN and the donor or the host > country, respectively. They can only be disclosed if all Parties to the > Agreement agree to do so. The UN may be bureaucratic, but whatever UN > staff do is based on rules and regulations set forth by UN Member > States. There is simply no point in discussing whether these rules are > too cumbersome or not. Hosting a UN event away from Headquarters > follows rules based on Resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly - > that is the UN's highest legislative authority. These rules are not > negotiable. The basic principle is that the extra costs arising from > hosting a meeting away from UN Headquarters need to be funded by the > Host Country. These costs include funding transport and per diem for UN > staff, such as interpreters, security personnel, secretariat and other > technical staff. For staff that need to be replaced at HQ (e.g. > security personnel, interpreters) it also includes so-called > replacement costs (that is to pay for the people who replace those who > went to the conference). It is obvious that these costs vary greatly > from venue to venue. Nairobi, for instance, is a UN HQ which brings > down the cost, as no security personnel or interpreters need to be > flown in. Indonesia will invariably more expensive, as most UN staff > would need to be flown in. The Host Country has the option of > transferring all the funds directly to the UN or assuming some of the > costs directly, such as paying for flight tickets and hotel rooms. The > UN asks the host country to provide transport from airport to hotels > and hotels to venue. It is up to the host country to decide how > generous it wants to be with providing free meals and other extras - > but that is not a requirement. The standard Host Country Agreement > provides the legal framework for the meeting. It puts the UN flag over > the meeting and guarantees diplomatic immunity to all participants for > any word spoken or written in the context of the meeting. For > understandable reasons, this fundamental right is not negotiable. The > IGF, with its open door policy, has expanded this notion of diplomatic > immunity well beyond the boundaries of  what is usually accepted by UN > conferences. Any participant with "proven expertise and experience" is > accepted without an onerous accreditation process, as it is normally > the case for ECOSOC accreditation and other UN conferences. This is a > huge accomplishment in terms of furthering multistakeholder cooperation > under the UN flag. Putting up with UN rules and regulations is a prize > worth paying for this! To cut a long story short: let's stay calm and > see whether Indonesia is ready to abide by some of these basic > principles and willing to fund the IGF. If they can explain with a > reasonable and reasoned budget where the shortfalls are, then we can > see whether there is any need for the international community to chip > in - but, as I said earlier to some of you: we are not there yet! I do > hope that in the end we will go to Bali - but at the same time we > should keep all the options open and be ready to shift to another > venue. Best regards Markus > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jul 28 00:22:06 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:22:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> Message-ID: Hi, A friend who is with Indonesian Civil Society working with the organizing committee sent me the following. ------ It's true that IGF 2013 committee is facing financial problem and it's likely to be cancelled. But, we have not announced official notification of the cancellation yet since now UN is trying to help us finding resources to cope with it. We will update later about the result. Thank you. ---------- 2013/7/28 Suresh Ramasubramanian > Given marilla's email, this appears to be a nonstarter, and so, moot. > > And it sounds very strange if some people were to continuously disparage a > community or organization on the one hand, and demand sponsorship money > from them on the other, on the grounds that the amount involved is hardly a > rounding error in their revenue (or even their ebitda), just saying. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 27-Jul-2013, at 23:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Parminder wrote: > > > >> All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF > > > > Is there anyone who in view of the current debacle is still opposed to > > UN funding for the IGF? > > > >> but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding from ICANN > >> collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... Isn't that > >> the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from staist as > >> well corporate controls.... > > > > I am not sure that ICANN's collection of domain name taxes is the right > > funding model for anything (it presupposes that domain names are sold > > for a price which makes them quite unaffordable to a very significant > > number of poor people) but as long as ICANN's funding model remains as > > it currently is, in view of ICANN's financials [1], funding at least a > > significant part of the cost of IGF meetings from ICANN's budget > > indeed makes a lot of sense. > > [1] http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dvbirve at yandex.ru Sun Jul 28 06:45:55 2013 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:45:55 +0400 Subject: [governance] Is the IGF really cancelled Message-ID: <428601375008355@web15g.yandex.ru> Dear colleagues! Is the IGF really cancelled or turned to the another point? I'm interested because my tickets are non-refundable. And where finally the IGF will be held? With kind regards, Andrey -- Отправлено из быстрой Яндекс.Почты http://mail.yandex.ru/neo2/collect/?exp=1&t=5 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Jul 28 06:48:42 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 12:48:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From squ24n at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 06:59:04 2013 From: squ24n at gmail.com (Borami Kim) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 19:59:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Is the IGF really cancelled In-Reply-To: <428601375008355@web15g.yandex.ru> References: <428601375008355@web15g.yandex.ru> Message-ID: Hi Andrey, I might be also in the same situation as you, and wait for the official announcement. I hope to have good news soon. Best, Borami 2013/7/28 Shcherbovich Andrey > Dear colleagues! > > Is the IGF really cancelled or turned to the another point? > > I'm interested because my tickets are non-refundable. And where finally > the IGF will be held? > > With kind regards, Andrey > > -- > Отправлено из быстрой Яндекс.Почты > http://mail.yandex.ru/neo2/collect/?exp=1&t=5 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Jul 28 07:07:32 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 04:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Demands to IGF host nation and UNDESA over funding (was: Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali) In-Reply-To: <601070E1-6740-4D3E-A804-C9A1D1B8C69F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1375009652.40997.YahooMailMobile@web160501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> It would be quite a loss if the IGF is really to be cancelled. Something doesn't add up! Surely the host country was aware of the cost of putting on this event. This information would have been part the decision making at the time of volunteering to host ? Some transparency on selection process and cost would be helpful . It also shocking to learn of the cost of UN staff, security and personnel. A suggestion indeed is that personel requiring such "protection" may follow remotely. Like everyone else I'm pondering on how to decrease costs and or think of ways to raise the funds to go ahead with IGF 2013. Many of us have participated since and see the critical value if this platform and want to see it continue. The implication of its demise to Internet governance would be far too great ! Hope, in the next few days we hear some news that indicates a better outcome !!! Shaila -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 28 07:50:01 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:20:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27/07/2013, at 3:42 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to >> see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' >> of >> the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a >> pure scandal.... > > This is hopefully just naivety on the part of the local organisers, > who didn't appreciate the difference between the IGF and any other > Internet conference. Well, may be.... although we tend to be selective about whom are we ready to easily forgive and for what... But in any case, what about the IGF secretariat and the MAG. Can they also be considered naive and / or innocent. They obviously knew of this document. BTW, the document says that it is trying a new multistakeholder model for holding the IGFs.. Does it not then constitute an express blessing by the IGF secretariat and the MAG to such a 'new model'. IGFs are held under the UN flag and the IGF space is subject to UN conference rules and immunities..... Would many things in the document not fundamentally be violative of some of these norms and rules.... In other circumstances, this would have immediately led to an inquiry and questions being raised officially about how did the IGF secretarit and the MAG allow such a thing.... But we are not in normal circumstances, this is the times of a strong ascendency of neo-liberal ideology..... And those who need to have triggered the outrage, the civil society, seem to be happy to quietly condone it as well. And what about the 1 million dollar that has been raised, I would think, on the basis this document. Is the IGF now bound by the promises made under the sponsorship deals.... And if these deals are not valid, because we would not want to deliver on the promises, can we still consider to have that 1 million dollar for holding the IGF? parminder > They can be forgiven for this because indeed until now there has been > precious little difference between the IGF and any other Internet > conference. That this could have happened is more of an indictment of > the state of the IGF than of the Indonesian team. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 08:00:46 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:00:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Demands to IGF host nation and UNDESA over funding (was: Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali) In-Reply-To: <3EF2E042-A575-4B6A-9F40-18394EEC27EC@ciroap.org> References: <3EF2E042-A575-4B6A-9F40-18394EEC27EC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I want to comment on Jeremy's second sentence because I think it demonstrates the accepted presence of something that we should try very hard to get rid of. One of the great gifts of the original Internet was the fact that it made true anonymity possible. If one chose to read someone else's ideas and suggestions then one was forced to pay attention to the proposal itself without jumping to pre-conclusions based on the perceived identity of the "speaker". If we are really interested in multistakeholder participation in governance then ALL participants must be given an equal quality of attention. I agree with Jeremy's sentence, but deplore the fact that he found it necessary to include it. Multistakeholder means listening to everyone with an open mind. Civil society should not consider itself as being "more equal than others"* although it may well be more inclusive than others (surely ALL of us belong to it) Deirdre * In George Orwell's "Animal Farm" Napoleon, one of the pigs who led the revolution, reduces the original "Seven Principles of Animalism" to one - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". On 27 July 2013 06:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Forwarding with permission. Let's not dismiss these recommendations by > dint of where they come from. I would like to see us discussing and > supporting them if appropriate. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Patrick Ryan > *Subject: **Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali* > *Date: *27 July 2013 12:56:37 PM GMT+08:00 > *To: *"Smith, Bill" > *Cc: *"internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" > > Dear all, > > As many of you know, the budget and funding issue has been a pet project > of mine since February, and has been quite intense since I joined the MAG > in May. It's a frustrating process because the way that the UN accounts > for projects is not standard (they don't use GAAP accounting, for example), > it's obscure, and the details are limited to donors. This makes it really > complicated: there's no way to attract donors unless there is transparency, > and even when one becomes a donor, there is still much to be desired. I'll > spare further soap-boxing on this point for another day, but offer some of > the following facts for the community. I don't claim to understand all of > this nor have any of us verified them, but at this point sharing them is > the only thing that I can see as a path towards resolution. We have two > concrete asks that we think can be helpful. > * > * > *#1, Request for ID-IGF: tell us what number is needed.* > The organization in Indonesia that is now sponsoring the IGF is ID-IGF, > and their fundraising brochure is here. It's > actually a $2m total figure (although we've also heard $2.5), but the > source for the $2m number is on p. 8 ("The overall fundraising target for > hosting the IGF in 2013 is USD $1,966,560.20") There are certainly many > things that can be reduced, as Vint mentions.* Thus, we ask ID-IGF to > provide us with a bottom-line number on what they need to raise to move > forward.* > * > * > *#2, Request for UNDESA: clear the path for Tides. * As of right now, if > any individual wants to fund the IGF, they need an individual contract with > UNDESA to do so. That is a complicated process and does not scale (it took > Google more than six months to negotiate the contract last year). While > crowdsourcing would be wonderful, it's completely impossible. We have a > proposed solution, but it is stalled. We propose working with Tides.org, > a non-profit that can aggregate funds. Through Tides, we could set up a > simple website and crowdsource. Here is my email about Tides as > sent to donors and MAG in Feb and in May, and here the actual Tides > proposal that > Tides sent to the IGF. * **Our request to UNDESA: clear the path for the > Tides proposal so that crowdsourcing can be enabled (UNDESA and Tides have > met various times and have exchanged documents, but after five months, it > is still open, but should be able to wrap quickly).* > * > * > *#3, Request for UNDESA: share the budget details with the community. *We've > asked many times for more transparency in the budget, as noted above. I've > documented this request with UN officials as well. It's crucial and not at > all controversial in government entities, and it's fundamental to create > trust and attract further donors. We've asked UNDESA to share that and > think it's important that it be acted upon. * Request for UNDESA: share > the overall budget details on the IGF with the community, both for the > IGF activities and for in-country budgets. * > > These requests are straightforward but we'll need the community to support > us if you agree. > > Patrick > > ------ > *patrick ryan * > public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l > relations > patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346 > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Smith, Bill wrote: > >> ... and I don't believe we have ever been able to get what in business >> we might call a reasonable budget. Large-scale events like the IGF are >> expensive and a figure of 2.5mm USD is not unreasonable. I can also state >> the 900k USD figure for UN "security and support" is in line with estimates >> I have hear bandied about. I have also been told that those costs are >> unavoidable for a UN event. >> >> I, and I expect many others, would consider an attendance fee quite >> acceptable. Of course there will be issues that would have to be addressed >> but they are manageable. Perhaps tomorrow will be a better day. >> >> On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:23 PM, "Vint Cerf" wrote: >> >> the numbers i have are not quite that favorable. I have been told the >> target is $2.5M and that the Indonesian ISP Alliance has raised $900K of >> that leaving a shortfall of $1.6M. I don't have adequate breakout to know >> what is included in these figures. In Azerbaijan, the government apparently >> tried to pay for all the food and maybe we could ask the attendees to pay >> an attendance fee to cover that? Until there is more clarity as to out of >> pocket expense for the venue, networking, other services, it will be hard >> to raise funds, I think. >> >> >> v >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < >> apisan at unam.mx> wrote: >> >>> Wyn, >>> >>> the consideration that good and trusted friend Peng Hwa conveys is >>> contained (having read him) in my question re unreasonable demands by the >>> UN - and it sure looks like one! >>> >>> It's very tempting to second-guess what is going on, it's sure the full >>> truth may never out, there does seem to be a lot of mischief and games >>> going on... so let's keep a watchful eye. >>> >>> One sure thing we will need to do is more transparency in the use of >>> this kind of funds and to understand whether such a bill can be justified >>> and accepted at all. Keep in mind for the right time. >>> >>> 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: internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org [ >>> internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Winthrop Yu [ >>> w.yu at gmx.net] >>> Enviado el: viernes, 26 de julio de 2013 18:17 >>> Hasta: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org >>> Asunto: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali >>> >>> In that vein Dr. Alejandro, the numbers show that the Indonesian >>> organizers >>> had already successfully raised US$1.15M, a not insubstantial amount. >>> Yes, >>> there is still a shortfall of US$1.05M. But it seems to me that without >>> that >>> single $900K expense item (mentioned by Prof. Ang below), then the >>> Indons are >>> already very close (only $105K remaining) to meeting their target budget? >>> >>> WYn >>> >>> >>> >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* >> > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50 >>> > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled >>> > To: "program at ... >> > >> > >>> > >>> > Folks, >>> > >>> > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled >>> the IGF. >>> > The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a >>> > businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society >>> group. >>> > >>> > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at >>> > >>> >>> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali >>> . >>> >>> > >>> > Use Google translate and you will be able to read. >>> > >>> > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were >>> asking for >>> > possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we >>> concluded that >>> > they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there were some >>> > possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many. >>> > >>> > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) >>> budget, they >>> > had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a >>> shortfall of >>> > US$1.05M. >>> > >>> > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) >>> said that >>> > one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel >>> and >>> > security apparatus to the meeting. >>> > >>> > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is >>> more >>> > complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year >>> for >>> > Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do >>> not win, >>> > what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC >>> meeting in the >>> > same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's >>> stage at >>> > that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose >>> ministry >>> > oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of >>> those series >>> > of unfortunate events. >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > Peng Hwa >>> > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named >>> and may >>> > be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended >>> recipient,please >>> > delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. >>> > >>> > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Rigf_program mailing list >>> > Rigf_program at ... >> > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/27/2013 4:12 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > for all I know ISOC and ICANN already make substantial monetary >>> contributions to >>> > the IGF, in different forms. They have been key all over the years. >>> > >>> > I am glad to see that Google is making a commitment of the right size >>> - enough >>> > of a fraction of the total cost to be significant, a real commitment, >>> and also >>> > leaving enough space for others to co-own the sustainability of the >>> IGF. >>> > >>> > I regret that this situation can also be seen as a victory for >>> extortion - >>> > parties not honoring their initial expected commitments finding >>> someone to pay >>> > for that - and think that we will need to understand the details >>> better (was the >>> > UN demanding too much or something unfair? were the parties in >>> Indonesia missing >>> > their targets?) in order to judge and to manage this into the future. >>> > >>> > It remains to be seen whether the extortion worked, or an honest deal >>> is >>> > stricken, in Indonesia or elsewhere, and the result will help distill >>> who is >>> > actually committed to an open IGF and who may be not so. Certainly >>> Google's >>> > contribution has to be welcomed and one would hope that it starts a >>> sort of >>> > bidding process in which parties compete to complete the support the >>> ITF needs. >>> > Much remains to be sorted out. >>> > >>> > But it is undeniable good news that there is a way to provide >>> sustainability to >>> > the IGF from a multistakeholder set of contributions, and for now I'll >>> reserve >>> > all other judgment and celebrate! >>> > >>> > 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 >>> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >>> https://portal.isoc.org/ >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >> https://portal.isoc.org/ >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >> https://portal.isoc.org/ >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >> > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jul 28 08:11:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:41:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F50A64.30900@itforchange.net> Hi Marilia Firstly, about your positions, I think we shared almost all positions at the WG meeting... That said, it is important to discuss what positions different actors held, and what issues were deliberately pushed aside. Now, which point gets time for discussion and which doesnt, itself is often politically determined... or determined by the power configurations that are manifest in the room... It needs to be clearly pointed out that committed UN funding was opposed by the business sector, technical community and the developed countries. They also rejected out of hand a committed ICANN funding model. That is a fact.... It is important to know what happens in public committees which are responsible to the public, and this issue is most germane to the current IGF imbroglio. . As for civil society reps, other than you, I found the views were lukewarm.... And that is important to know as well. As for 'mixed models; - of course there was not one view on the table that the voluntary model of funding would be banned or anything.... So the only operative part of a mixed model was strongly pitching for a committed UN funding, and I know it that there wasnt any such pitch made or supported... I would not give much weight to what a UNDESA official was musing about the UN's general state of funds, orientations etc.. The group neededd to recommedd what it thought was right to do, and was needed to be done. It had all the power. After all is was sending its advice to the General Assembly, which can decide anything. Is it that if the same official have said that multistakeholderism is difficult to be really accepted in the deep UN corridors we would bypassed that part.... And do you remember the kind of devices that were invented, and obstructions made.... It was strongly and repeated proposed that the UN can in fact *cannot* fund the IGF.... This is one of the funniest things I have ever heard. UN GA can do anything, and the WG's was to be an advice to the UN GA.... But this complete falsehood was propagated by involving high - ups or insiders that you know about and I wont want to go into naming.... I think it is important to report these things to the people who were not present... People need to know what has gone into bringing the IGF to the state that it is in today, especially in terms of the funding... And what was the contribution to it of the working group constituted to specifically suggest improvements in the IGF. These lessons are also useful for the future, because we are not far from the 10 year review of the IGF. Happy to further hear your views on this... And thanks for sharing them in the first place..... parminder On Saturday 27 July 2013 09:18 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:13 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > Such a proposal for using ICANN collected funds to support the IGF > was put forward in the WG on IGF Improvements by my organisation > as well as by India, and supported by developing countries. Why > did other non gov stakeholders (including civil society) and > developed countries oppose this proposal.... Can at least the > civil society members of that group who are on this list > explain.... I can see why private sector or corporate funded > technical community did not want it... can also see the agenda of > US supporting developed country constituency.... but why did civil > society oppose it... If the IGF is really their most loved child... > > > Hi Parminder! > > As a participant on the WG on IGF improvements, I would just like to > comment on what I recall from memory: > > - The issue of allocating sustainable and predictable public UN > funding to the IGF was tabled and discussed among members despite the > time constraints we had. As I remember, most CS representatives, > including myself, supported this proposal of UN public funding > (meaning: public UN funding and private voluntary funding should > coexist). As you said, there was strong opposition and the proposal > was not included in the report. But we must also acknowledge that UN > posed main obstacles to that. UNDESA came to one of our meetings with > the purpose to tell us that it was fruitless to put forth such a > proposal (UN funding), because UN funds were being cut all across the > board. If the UN executes decisions of member countries, maybe it is > also fair to say that countries that support UN public funding for the > IGF also lacked political articulation and let DESA "impose" that line > on the group, saying it was an "impossible topic". Sometimes it seems > to me that no one wants to put more money (either because they dont > believe in the importance of the IGF or because current lack of > transparency on fund management - a real big problem - prevents them > from willing to commit). It is a vicious cycle and a blame-game. > > - If I remember correctly, the proposal to use ICANN funds to support > the IGF was not properly discussed in the group. When the proposal was > tabled, the group started to dwell on procedural issues: if the group > had competence to propose it, if the UN had legitimacy to propose it, > if it was juridically feasible to propose it, if we could propose it > in a group in which ICANN was not represented, etc... Some group > members were openly against it, but, to my understanding, this > proposal did not get to be discussed in depth and substance, reason > why I think it is not accurate to say that CS members were against > it... Speaking on my own behalf: I needed more time to think and > understand all the implications, but the discussion did not continue. > I think (i dont remember exactly) the vehemency of opposition made > clear that the group would not have consensus on that issue and, since > the report was consensus-based, we moved on. > Marília -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 08:20:10 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:20:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> Message-ID: <42419E82-F182-4B44-85A4-74E111C29A7F@gmail.com> Norbert, Most domain names can be used for under US $10 per year. n addition, you do not need to have a domain name to make very productive use of the INternet. George On Jul 27, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF > > Is there anyone who in view of the current debacle is still opposed to > UN funding for the IGF? > >> but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding from ICANN >> collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... Isn't that >> the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from staist as >> well corporate controls.... > > I am not sure that ICANN's collection of domain name taxes is the right > funding model for anything (it presupposes that domain names are sold > for a price which makes them quite unaffordable to a very significant > number of poor people) but as long as ICANN's funding model remains as > it currently is, in view of ICANN's financials [1], funding at least a > significant part of the cost of IGF meetings from ICANN's budget > indeed makes a lot of sense. > [1] http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jul 28 08:20:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:50:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Before jumping to that conclusion, is there any indication that this cash for slots idea was an initiative endorsed and operated by the MAG or the secretariat, rather than by an uninformed local team? --srs (htc one x) On 28 July 2013 5:20:01 PM parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 27/07/2013, at 3:42 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > >> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to > see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' > of the > managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal.... > > > > This is hopefully just naivety on the part of the local organisers, who > didn't appreciate the difference between the IGF and any other Internet > conference. > > Well, may be.... although we tend to be selective about whom are we ready > to easily forgive and for what... But in any case, what about the IGF > secretariat and the MAG. Can they also be considered naive and / or > innocent. They obviously knew of this document. BTW, the document says > that it is trying a new multistakeholder model for holding the IGFs.. Does > it not then constitute an express blessing by the IGF secretariat and the > MAG to such a 'new model'. > > > IGFs are held under the UN flag and the IGF space is subject to UN > conference rules and immunities..... Would many things in the document not > fundamentally be violative of some of these norms and rules.... In other > circumstances, this would have immediately led to an inquiry and questions > being raised officially about how did the IGF secretarit and the MAG allow > such a thing.... But we are not in normal circumstances, this is the times > of a strong ascendency of neo-liberal ideology..... And those who need to > have triggered the outrage, the civil society, seem to be happy to quietly > condone it as well. > > And what about the 1 million dollar that has been raised, I would think, on > the basis this document. Is the IGF now bound by the promises made under > the sponsorship deals.... And if these deals are not valid, because we > would not want to deliver on the promises, can we still consider to have > that 1 million dollar for holding the IGF? > > > parminder > > > > > They can be forgiven for this because indeed until now there has been > precious little difference between the IGF and any other Internet > conference. That this could have happened is more of an indictment of the > state of the IGF than of the Indonesian team. > > > > -- > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Policy Officer > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't print > this email unless necessary. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jul 28 08:27:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:57:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Demands to IGF host nation and UNDESA over funding (was: Fwd: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali) In-Reply-To: References: <3EF2E042-A575-4B6A-9F40-18394EEC27EC@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <140253f2cfd.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> It is interesting but googling the animal farm quote gives me more than one article and blog post that talks about institutionalized racism. Which this smug and automatic assumption of superiority over other stakeholders actually is, after a fashion. We have seen more than one attempt to redefine civil society in such a manner as to shut out, say, the technical community, which makes your calling out this behavior quite a good idea. --srs (htc one x) On 28 July 2013 5:30:46 PM Deirdre Williams wrote: > I want to comment on Jeremy's second sentence because I think it > demonstrates the accepted presence of something that we should try very > hard to get rid of. > One of the great gifts of the original Internet was the fact that it made > true anonymity possible. If one chose to read someone else's ideas and > suggestions then one was forced to pay attention to the proposal itself > without jumping to pre-conclusions based on the perceived identity of the > "speaker". > If we are really interested in multistakeholder participation in governance > then ALL participants must be given an equal quality of attention. > I agree with Jeremy's sentence, but deplore the fact that he found it > necessary to include it. > Multistakeholder means listening to everyone with an open mind. > Civil society should not consider itself as being "more equal than others"* > although it may well be more inclusive than others (surely ALL of us belong > to it) > Deirdre > * In George Orwell's "Animal Farm" Napoleon, one of the pigs who led the > revolution, reduces the original "Seven Principles of Animalism" to one - > "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". > > > On 27 July 2013 06:05, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > Forwarding with permission. Let's not dismiss these recommendations by > > dint of where they come from. I would like to see us discussing and > > supporting them if appropriate. > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > *From: *Patrick Ryan > > *Subject: **Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali* > > *Date: *27 July 2013 12:56:37 PM GMT+08:00 > > *To: *"Smith, Bill" > > *Cc: *"internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" > > > > Dear all, > > > > As many of you know, the budget and funding issue has been a pet project > > of mine since February, and has been quite intense since I joined the MAG > > in May. It's a frustrating process because the way that the UN accounts > > for projects is not standard (they don't use GAAP accounting, for example), > > it's obscure, and the details are limited to donors. This makes it really > > complicated: there's no way to attract donors unless there is transparency, > > and even when one becomes a donor, there is still much to be desired. I'll > > spare further soap-boxing on this point for another day, but offer some of > > the following facts for the community. I don't claim to understand all of > > this nor have any of us verified them, but at this point sharing them is > > the only thing that I can see as a path towards resolution. We have two > > concrete asks that we think can be helpful. > > * > > * > > *#1, Request for ID-IGF: tell us what number is needed.* > > The organization in Indonesia that is now sponsoring the IGF is ID-IGF, > > and their fundraising brochure is > here. It's > > actually a $2m total figure (although we've also heard $2.5), but the > > source for the $2m number is on p. 8 ("The overall fundraising target for > > hosting the IGF in 2013 is USD $1,966,560.20") There are certainly many > > things that can be reduced, as Vint mentions.* Thus, we ask ID-IGF to > > provide us with a bottom-line number on what they need to raise to move > > forward.* > > * > > * > > *#2, Request for UNDESA: clear the path for Tides. * As of right now, if > > any individual wants to fund the IGF, they need an individual contract with > > UNDESA to do so. That is a complicated process and does not scale (it took > > Google more than six months to negotiate the contract last year). While > > crowdsourcing would be wonderful, it's completely impossible. We have a > > proposed solution, but it is stalled. We propose working with Tides.org, > > a non-profit that can aggregate funds. Through Tides, we could set up a > > simple website and crowdsource. Here is my email about > Tides > as > > sent to donors and MAG in Feb and in May, and here the actual Tides > > > proposal > that > > Tides sent to the IGF. * **Our request to UNDESA: clear the path for the > > Tides proposal so that crowdsourcing can be enabled (UNDESA and Tides have > > met various times and have exchanged documents, but after five months, it > > is still open, but should be able to wrap quickly).* > > * > > * > > *#3, Request for UNDESA: share the budget details with the community. *We've > > asked many times for more transparency in the budget, as noted above. I've > > documented this request with UN officials as well. It's crucial and not at > > all controversial in government entities, and it's fundamental to create > > trust and attract further donors. We've asked UNDESA to share that and > > think it's important that it be acted upon. * Request for UNDESA: share > > the overall budget details on the IGF with the community, both for the > > IGF activities and for in-country budgets. * > > > > These requests are straightforward but we'll need the community to support > > us if you agree. > > > > Patrick > > > > ------ > > *patrick ryan * > > public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l > > relations > > patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346 > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Smith, Bill > wrote: > > > >> ... and I don't believe we have ever been able to get what in business > >> we might call a reasonable budget. Large-scale events like the IGF are > >> expensive and a figure of 2.5mm USD is not unreasonable. I can also state > >> the 900k USD figure for UN "security and support" is in line with estimates > >> I have hear bandied about. I have also been told that those costs are > >> unavoidable for a UN event. > >> > >> I, and I expect many others, would consider an attendance fee quite > >> acceptable. Of course there will be issues that would have to be addressed > >> but they are manageable. Perhaps tomorrow will be a better day. > >> > >> On Jul 26, 2013, at 7:23 PM, "Vint Cerf" wrote: > >> > >> the numbers i have are not quite that favorable. I have been told the > >> target is $2.5M and that the Indonesian ISP Alliance has raised $900K of > >> that leaving a shortfall of $1.6M. I don't have adequate breakout to know > >> what is included in these figures. In Azerbaijan, the government apparently > >> tried to pay for all the food and maybe we could ask the attendees to pay > >> an attendance fee to cover that? Until there is more clarity as to out of > >> pocket expense for the venue, networking, other services, it will be hard > >> to raise funds, I think. > >> > >> > >> v > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < > >> apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > >> > >>> Wyn, > >>> > >>> the consideration that good and trusted friend Peng Hwa conveys is > >>> contained (having read him) in my question re unreasonable demands by the > >>> UN - and it sure looks like one! > >>> > >>> It's very tempting to second-guess what is going on, it's sure the full > >>> truth may never out, there does seem to be a lot of mischief and games > >>> going on... so let's keep a watchful eye. > >>> > >>> One sure thing we will need to do is more transparency in the use of > >>> this kind of funds and to understand whether such a bill can be justified > >>> and accepted at all. Keep in mind for the right time. > >>> > >>> 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: internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org [ > >>> internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] en nombre de Winthrop Yu [ > >>> w.yu at gmx.net] > >>> Enviado el: viernes, 26 de julio de 2013 18:17 > >>> Hasta: internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org > >>> Asunto: Re: [Internet Policy] IGF Bali > >>> > >>> In that vein Dr. Alejandro, the numbers show that the Indonesian > >>> organizers > >>> had already successfully raised US$1.15M, a not insubstantial amount. > >>> Yes, > >>> there is still a shortfall of US$1.05M. But it seems to me that without > >>> that > >>> single $900K expense item (mentioned by Prof. Ang below), then the > >>> Indons are > >>> already very close (only $105K remaining) to meeting their target budget? > >>> > >>> WYn > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* >>> > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50 > >>> > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled > >>> > To: "program at ... >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Folks, > >>> > > >>> > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled > >>> the IGF. > >>> > The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a > >>> > businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society > >>> group. > >>> > > >>> > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at > >>> > > >>> > >>> > http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali > >>> . > >>> > >>> > > >>> > Use Google translate and you will be able to read. > >>> > > >>> > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were > >>> asking for > >>> > possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we > >>> concluded that > >>> > they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there were some > >>> > possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many. > >>> > > >>> > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) > >>> budget, they > >>> > had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a > >>> shortfall of > >>> > US$1.05M. > >>> > > >>> > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) > >>> said that > >>> > one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel > >>> and > >>> > security apparatus to the meeting. > >>> > > >>> > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is > >>> more > >>> > complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year > >>> for > >>> > Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do > >>> not win, > >>> > what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC > >>> meeting in the > >>> > same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's > >>> stage at > >>> > that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose > >>> ministry > >>> > oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of > >>> those series > >>> > of unfortunate events. > >>> > > >>> > Regards, > >>> > Peng Hwa > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named > >>> and may > >>> > be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended > >>> recipient,please > >>> > delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. > >>> > > >>> > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > Rigf_program mailing list > >>> > Rigf_program at ... >>> > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7/27/2013 4:12 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > >>> > Hi all, > >>> > > >>> > for all I know ISOC and ICANN already make substantial monetary > >>> contributions to > >>> > the IGF, in different forms. They have been key all over the years. > >>> > > >>> > I am glad to see that Google is making a commitment of the right size > >>> - enough > >>> > of a fraction of the total cost to be significant, a real commitment, > >>> and also > >>> > leaving enough space for others to co-own the sustainability of the > >>> IGF. > >>> > > >>> > I regret that this situation can also be seen as a victory for > >>> extortion - > >>> > parties not honoring their initial expected commitments finding > >>> someone to pay > >>> > for that - and think that we will need to understand the details > >>> better (was the > >>> > UN demanding too much or something unfair? were the parties in > >>> Indonesia missing > >>> > their targets?) in order to judge and to manage this into the future. > >>> > > >>> > It remains to be seen whether the extortion worked, or an honest deal > >>> is > >>> > stricken, in Indonesia or elsewhere, and the result will help distill > >>> who is > >>> > actually committed to an open IGF and who may be not so. Certainly > >>> Google's > >>> > contribution has to be welcomed and one would hope that it starts a > >>> sort of > >>> > bidding process in which parties compete to complete the support the > >>> ITF needs. > >>> > Much remains to be sorted out. > >>> > > >>> > But it is undeniable good news that there is a way to provide > >>> sustainability to > >>> > the IGF from a multistakeholder set of contributions, and for now I'll > >>> reserve > >>> > all other judgment and celebrate! > >>> > > >>> > 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 > >>> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > >>> https://portal.isoc.org/ > >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > >>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > >>> https://portal.isoc.org/ > >>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > >> https://portal.isoc.org/ > >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > >> please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > >> https://portal.isoc.org/ > >> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > > https://portal.isoc.org/ > > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate and geek > > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > > > > > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > > Senior Policy Officer > > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > > Malaysia > > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > > Read our email confidentiality > notice. > > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jul 28 10:22:02 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 16:22:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Before jumping to that conclusion, is there any indication that this > cash for slots idea was an initiative endorsed and operated by the > MAG or the secretariat, rather than by an uninformed local team? Even if it was done by an “uninformed” local team, there is an important question in regard to how one reacts to these actions of that local team. I'd suggest that it would be appropriate to ask the secretariat and the MAG whether they were aware of this, and if so, what steps were taken to inform the local team that that kind of promises in the context of fundraising for a diplomatic process are really not appropriate. Also ask what steps are being taken to prevent any repetition of this kind of situation. This is not a small matter. Possibly money was raised based on these promises, and a 'new IGF model' is being proposed that might just catch on: If no action is taken to prevent the IGF's credibility from being ruined in that way, that might just happen. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jul 28 10:57:13 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 20:27:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> Message-ID: <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Fine with me. As long as we don't accuse them right from the start --srs (htc one x) On 28 July 2013 7:52:02 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Before jumping to that conclusion, is there any indication that this > > cash for slots idea was an initiative endorsed and operated by the > > MAG or the secretariat, rather than by an uninformed local team? > > Even if it was done by an “uninformed” local team, there is an important > question in regard to how one reacts to these actions of that local > team. > > I'd suggest that it would be appropriate to ask the secretariat and > the MAG whether they were aware of this, and if so, what steps were > taken to inform the local team that that kind of promises in the > context of fundraising for a diplomatic process are really not > appropriate. Also ask what steps are being taken to prevent any > repetition of this kind of situation. This is not a small matter. > Possibly money was raised based on these promises, and a 'new IGF > model' is being proposed that might just catch on: If no action is > taken to prevent the IGF's credibility from being ruined in that way, > that might just happen. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Jul 28 16:18:12 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:18:12 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F57C84.7010803@apc.org> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary information. Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs. The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic mandate has not changed. The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about its budget and the UN Trust Fund. Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think of as IGF organising principles. Anriette On 28/07/2013 13:50, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 27/07/2013, at 3:42 PM, parminder > > wrote: >> >>> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened >>> to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' >>> >>> of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a >>> pure scandal.... >> >> This is hopefully just naivety on the part of the local organisers, >> who didn't appreciate the difference between the IGF and any other >> Internet conference. > > Well, may be.... although we tend to be selective about whom are we > ready to easily forgive and for what... But in any case, what about > the IGF secretariat and the MAG. Can they also be considered naive and > / or innocent. They obviously knew of this document. BTW, the > document says that it is trying a new multistakeholder model for > holding the IGFs.. Does it not then constitute an express blessing by > the IGF secretariat and the MAG to such a 'new model'. > > > IGFs are held under the UN flag and the IGF space is subject to UN > conference rules and immunities..... Would many things in the document > not fundamentally be violative of some of these norms and rules.... In > other circumstances, this would have immediately led to an inquiry and > questions being raised officially about how did the IGF secretarit and > the MAG allow such a thing.... But we are not in normal > circumstances, this is the times of a strong ascendency of > neo-liberal ideology..... And those who need to have triggered the > outrage, the civil society, seem to be happy to quietly condone it as > well. > > And what about the 1 million dollar that has been raised, I would > think, on the basis this document. Is the IGF now bound by the > promises made under the sponsorship deals.... And if these deals are > not valid, because we would not want to deliver on the promises, can > we still consider to have that 1 million dollar for holding the IGF? > > > parminder > > > >> They can be forgiven for this because indeed until now there has been >> precious little difference between the IGF and any other Internet >> conference. That this could have happened is more of an indictment >> of the state of the IGF than of the Indonesian team. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Jul 28 17:10:53 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:10:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless I missed it). But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from previous IGFs. Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions. Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony. I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs. Donors and international organisations can have side-events or pre-events. Also not new. Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given sponsors some recognition. E.g. http://igf.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=55 Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it, but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of recognising sponsors have always been part of the process. It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding. If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it. Anriette On 28/07/2013 16:57, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Fine with me. As long as we don't accuse them right from the start > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 28 July 2013 7:52:02 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> > Before jumping to that conclusion, is there any indication that this >> > cash for slots idea was an initiative endorsed and operated by the >> > MAG or the secretariat, rather than by an uninformed local team? >> >> Even if it was done by an “uninformed” local team, there is an important >> question in regard to how one reacts to these actions of that local >> team. >> >> I'd suggest that it would be appropriate to ask the secretariat and >> the MAG whether they were aware of this, and if so, what steps were >> taken to inform the local team that that kind of promises in the >> context of fundraising for a diplomatic process are really not >> appropriate. Also ask what steps are being taken to prevent any >> repetition of this kind of situation. This is not a small matter. >> Possibly money was raised based on these promises, and a 'new IGF >> model' is being proposed that might just catch on: If no action is >> taken to prevent the IGF's credibility from being ruined in that way, >> that might just happen. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Jul 28 17:51:26 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 23:51:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F50A64.30900@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <51F50A64.30900@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F5925E.5020303@apc.org> My recollections of the discussions at the Working Group meetings are the same as Marilia's. A few other things. Not only developed countries opposed committed UN funding. South Africa and Iran also opposed committed UN funding. I discussed this later with the SA representatives at length, so I am very certain about this. Their reasons as I understood them were simple. The UN does not have the funds, and the only way of getting the funds would be from member contributions and many member countries were not able to contribute more, nor did they want the developed countries to do so either for various reasons. As for a domain name 'tax', as Marilia said it was not discussed in full. There are different money flows in the domain name system, and it is a system that are run by primarily for-profit (and a few not-for-profit) entities. One would need to come up with a model for how this one would be collected, check how much it would contribute, do a cost benefit analysis, etc. Another option to explore would be the option of an additional payment by domain name holders towards the IGF. But I don't see how this, if it is workable, is not part of a mixed model? But as Marilia says, without quite specific models on the table it was difficult to take this further. Moreover, there was no consensus on putting detailed financial proposals in the report in the first place. Several other proposals for resourcing the IGF were also discussed, but not included in the report. As for my personal reasons for being 'lukewarm' about ICANN and the DNS industry being a greater source of funds...I felt that more diversity of sources would be a better option than extracting more from the same sources that the IGF is already depending on. Not that I don't think ICANN should contribute far more to the IGF! I also think that if one does go for a 'tax/overhead' of some kind on domain names, before assuming it should go to the IGF, one should consider whether it could not be used for increasing affordable access, or supporting linguistic diversity - e.g. creation of content in languages not well-represented on the internet. And if such a 'tax' is being collected from domain name holders, should they not be part of the discussion on what it should be spent? I was also interested in mechanisms of crowdsourcing funding and support from internet users and the IGF community. During the Working Group discussions on funding I proposed a voluntary contribution/donation to be made during online registration for each annual event. But this is apparently not possible because of some UN rule or practice. However, other ways of sourcing funds in this way can be found, and there a proposal was made to the MAG to set up a fund, administered independently by the Tides Foundation (a not-for-profit foundation based in San Francisco) that could receive donations and contributions which cannot easily be managed by the UN Trust Fund. Anriette On 28/07/2013 14:11, parminder wrote: > > Hi Marilia > > Firstly, about your positions, I think we shared almost all positions > at the WG meeting... > > That said, it is important to discuss what positions different actors > held, and what issues were deliberately pushed aside. Now, which point > gets time for discussion and which doesnt, itself is often politically > determined... or determined by the power configurations that are > manifest in the room... > > It needs to be clearly pointed out that committed UN funding was > opposed by the business sector, technical community and the developed > countries. They also rejected out of hand a committed ICANN funding > model. That is a fact.... It is important to know what happens in > public committees which are responsible to the public, and this issue > is most germane to the current IGF imbroglio. . > > As for civil society reps, other than you, I found the views were > lukewarm.... And that is important to know as well. As for 'mixed > models; - of course there was not one view on the table that the > voluntary model of funding would be banned or anything.... So the only > operative part of a mixed model was strongly pitching for a committed > UN funding, and I know it that there wasnt any such pitch made or > supported... > > I would not give much weight to what a UNDESA official was musing > about the UN's general state of funds, orientations etc.. The group > neededd to recommedd what it thought was right to do, and was needed > to be done. It had all the power. After all is was sending its advice > to the General Assembly, which can decide anything. Is it that if the > same official have said that multistakeholderism is difficult to be > really accepted in the deep UN corridors we would bypassed that part.... > > And do you remember the kind of devices that were invented, and > obstructions made.... It was strongly and repeated proposed that the > UN can in fact *cannot* fund the IGF.... This is one of the funniest > things I have ever heard. UN GA can do anything, and the WG's was to > be an advice to the UN GA.... But this complete falsehood was > propagated by involving high - ups or insiders that you know about and > I wont want to go into naming.... I think it is important to report > these things to the people who were not present... > > People need to know what has gone into bringing the IGF to the state > that it is in today, especially in terms of the funding... And what > was the contribution to it of the working group constituted to > specifically suggest improvements in the IGF. These lessons are also > useful for the future, because we are not far from the 10 year review > of the IGF. > > Happy to further hear your views on this... And thanks for sharing > them in the first place..... parminder > > > > > On Saturday 27 July 2013 09:18 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 3:13 AM, parminder > > wrote: >> >> >> Such a proposal for using ICANN collected funds to support the IGF >> was put forward in the WG on IGF Improvements by my organisation >> as well as by India, and supported by developing countries. Why >> did other non gov stakeholders (including civil society) and >> developed countries oppose this proposal.... Can at least the >> civil society members of that group who are on this list >> explain.... I can see why private sector or corporate funded >> technical community did not want it... can also see the agenda of >> US supporting developed country constituency.... but why did civil >> society oppose it... If the IGF is really their most loved child... >> >> >> Hi Parminder! >> >> As a participant on the WG on IGF improvements, I would just like to >> comment on what I recall from memory: >> >> - The issue of allocating sustainable and predictable public UN >> funding to the IGF was tabled and discussed among members despite the >> time constraints we had. As I remember, most CS representatives, >> including myself, supported this proposal of UN public funding >> (meaning: public UN funding and private voluntary funding should >> coexist). As you said, there was strong opposition and the proposal >> was not included in the report. But we must also acknowledge that UN >> posed main obstacles to that. UNDESA came to one of our meetings with >> the purpose to tell us that it was fruitless to put forth such a >> proposal (UN funding), because UN funds were being cut all across the >> board. If the UN executes decisions of member countries, maybe it is >> also fair to say that countries that support UN public funding for >> the IGF also lacked political articulation and let DESA "impose" that >> line on the group, saying it was an "impossible topic". Sometimes it >> seems to me that no one wants to put more money (either because they >> dont believe in the importance of the IGF or because current lack of >> transparency on fund management - a real big problem - prevents them >> from willing to commit). It is a vicious cycle and a blame-game. >> >> - If I remember correctly, the proposal to use ICANN funds to >> support the IGF was not properly discussed in the group. When the >> proposal was tabled, the group started to dwell on procedural issues: >> if the group had competence to propose it, if the UN had legitimacy >> to propose it, if it was juridically feasible to propose it, if we >> could propose it in a group in which ICANN was not represented, >> etc... Some group members were openly against it, but, to my >> understanding, this proposal did not get to be discussed in depth and >> substance, reason why I think it is not accurate to say that CS >> members were against it... Speaking on my own behalf: I needed more >> time to think and understand all the implications, but the discussion >> did not continue. I think (i dont remember exactly) the vehemency of >> opposition made clear that the group would not have consensus on that >> issue and, since the report was consensus-based, we moved on. >> Marília > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Sun Jul 28 20:37:24 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 20:37:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:13 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 26 July 2013 10:04 AM, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > > According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one > major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked for > US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event. **** > > > Time to cut the UN apron strings. > > > Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run the > global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that after > subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public funding for policy > spaces and activities,.... > > > The game has in fact begun.......Google has already offered 20k > I had thought it was 200k, which I thought quite generous and nothing asked in return of course. I think Anriette is on the right track, diversity in funding is useful to pursue. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jul 28 20:45:20 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:15:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal Message-ID: So here is the answer for which parminder accused the secretariat and mag, and then waxed sarcastic at paul wilson Thanks for the clarification, anriette  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Anriette Esterhuysen Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary information. Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs. The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic mandate has not changed. The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about its budget and the UN Trust Fund. Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think of as IGF organising principles. Anriette On 28/07/2013 13:50, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 27/07/2013, at 3:42 PM, parminder > > wrote: >> >>> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened >>> to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' >>> >>> of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a >>> pure scandal.... >> >> This is hopefully just naivety on the part of the local organisers, >> who didn't appreciate the difference between the IGF and any other >> Internet conference. > > Well, may be.... although we tend to be selective about whom are we > ready to easily forgive and for what... But in any case, what about > the IGF secretariat and the MAG. Can they also be considered naive and > / or innocent.  They obviously knew of this document. BTW, the > document says that it is trying a new multistakeholder model for > holding the IGFs..  Does it not then constitute an express blessing by > the IGF secretariat and the MAG to such a 'new model'. > > > IGFs are held under the UN flag and the IGF space is subject to UN > conference rules and immunities..... Would many things in the document > not fundamentally be violative of some of these norms and rules.... In > other circumstances, this would have immediately led to an inquiry and > questions being raised officially about how did the IGF secretarit and > the MAG allow such a thing.... But we are not in normal > circumstances,  this is the times of a strong ascendency of > neo-liberal ideology..... And those who need to have triggered the > outrage, the civil society, seem to be happy to quietly condone it as > well. > > And what about the 1 million dollar that has been raised, I would > think, on the basis this document. Is the IGF now bound by the > promises made under the sponsorship deals.... And if these deals are > not valid, because we would not want to deliver on the promises, can > we still consider to have that 1 million dollar for holding the IGF? > > > parminder > > > >> They can be forgiven for this because indeed until now there has been >> precious little difference between the IGF and any other Internet >> conference.  That this could have happened is more of an indictment >> of the state of the IGF than of the Indonesian team. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Senior Policy Officer >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jul 28 20:50:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:20:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal Message-ID: As long as this doesn't carry over into the plenaries and workshops guest speakers from sponsoring ministries and industry are a courtesy, however one that has to be carefully managed to prevent the event from becoming a very public soapbox for a commercial or political agenda.  That, and vetting the speakers that the sponsors bring forward for these keynotes. Like ramalinga raju of the satyam group at igf hyderabad, not long after the igf, got arrested for emptying millions of rupees from his company and driving it into bankruptcy.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Anriette Esterhuysen Date: 07/29/2013 2:40 AM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless I missed it). But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from previous IGFs. Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions. Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony. I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs. Donors and international organisations can have side-events or pre-events. Also not new. Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given sponsors some recognition.  E.g. http://igf.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=55 Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it, but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of recognising sponsors have always been part of the process. It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but  don't really see evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding. If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it. Anriette On 28/07/2013 16:57, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Fine with me. As long as we don't accuse them right from the start > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 28 July 2013 7:52:02 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> > Before jumping to that conclusion, is there any indication that this >> > cash for slots idea was an initiative endorsed and operated by the >> > MAG or the secretariat, rather than by an uninformed local team? >> >> Even if it was done by an “uninformed” local team, there is an important >> question in regard to how one reacts to these actions of that local >> team. >> >> I'd suggest that it would be appropriate to ask the secretariat and >> the MAG whether they were aware of this, and if so, what steps were >> taken to inform the local team that that kind of promises in the >> context of fundraising for a diplomatic process are really not >> appropriate. Also ask what steps are being taken to prevent any >> repetition of this kind of situation. This is not a small matter. >> Possibly money was raised based on these promises, and a 'new IGF >> model' is being proposed that might just catch on: If no action is >> taken to prevent the IGF's credibility from being ruined in that way, >> that might just happen. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Jul 28 23:45:22 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:15:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> Message-ID: Interesting to see how this is unraveling. I honestly thought I was the only one here who's clueless about this procedure and was feeling pretty foolish for not reading up/googling about it before. Given the IGF has been happening a while now, would the MAG not try to familiarize themselves with the proposal documents in full? I'm asking out of want, to learn - not to apportion blame. -C On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an > official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually > offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception > of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing > ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless > I missed it). > > But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? > > There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get > a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level > event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from > previous IGFs. > > Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not > new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and > relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions. > > Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony. > I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs. > > Donors and international organisations can have side-events or > pre-events. Also not new. > > Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the > place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given > sponsors some recognition. E.g. > http://igf.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=55 > > Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it, > but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding > harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of > recognising sponsors have always been part of the process. > > It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling > influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of > that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding. > > If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it. > > Anriette > > > > On 28/07/2013 16:57, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Fine with me. As long as we don't accuse them right from the start > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > > > > On 28 July 2013 7:52:02 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> > >> > Before jumping to that conclusion, is there any indication that this > >> > cash for slots idea was an initiative endorsed and operated by the > >> > MAG or the secretariat, rather than by an uninformed local team? > >> > >> Even if it was done by an “uninformed” local team, there is an important > >> question in regard to how one reacts to these actions of that local > >> team. > >> > >> I'd suggest that it would be appropriate to ask the secretariat and > >> the MAG whether they were aware of this, and if so, what steps were > >> taken to inform the local team that that kind of promises in the > >> context of fundraising for a diplomatic process are really not > >> appropriate. Also ask what steps are being taken to prevent any > >> repetition of this kind of situation. This is not a small matter. > >> Possibly money was raised based on these promises, and a 'new IGF > >> model' is being proposed that might just catch on: If no action is > >> taken to prevent the IGF's credibility from being ruined in that way, > >> that might just happen. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> -- > >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > >> > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jul 29 00:26:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:56:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> Message-ID: <606F9541-CA48-4B36-BA2F-96D3A391F9BD@hserus.net> Sorry, but what has unraveled - except possibly an attempt to "ah..hah, gotcha!!" the MAG? :) That said, speaking slots of any sort that take place in the actual conference halls are a risky proposition to promise in return for sponsorship. There is an ever present risk that the IGF agenda gets piggybacked onto and becomes a soapbox for political, commercial or other interests. Generally, it should be quite safe to host dignitaries from the sponsors to speak at lunch breaks, for example - or allow them to host separate sessions, clearly marked "sponsor: XXXX" where those that are interested can carry out discussions. [eg: A google public policy outreach session, just for example]. Very similar to advertiser sponsored features in newspapers - they're supposed to be clearly marked as such, but sometimes aren't. --srs (iPad) On 29-Jul-2013, at 9:15, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Interesting to see how this is unraveling. I honestly thought I was the only one here who's clueless about this procedure and was feeling pretty foolish for not reading up/googling about it before. > > Given the IGF has been happening a while now, would the MAG not try to familiarize themselves with the proposal documents in full? I'm asking out of want, to learn - not to apportion blame. > > -C > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Jul 29 00:48:47 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:18:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <606F9541-CA48-4B36-BA2F-96D3A391F9BD@hserus.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> <606F9541-CA48-4B36-BA2F-96D3A391F9BD@hserus.net> Message-ID: unraveled = the document being unavailable to the mag Which is what I'm asking about actually, would they not try to get and review the documents as part of their work, and no - no gotchas - I did say I'm asking for my knowledge and not for blame :) -C On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Sorry, but what has unraveled - except possibly an attempt to "ah..hah, > gotcha!!" the MAG? :) > > That said, speaking slots of any sort that take place in the actual > conference halls are a risky proposition to promise in return for > sponsorship. There is an ever present risk that the IGF agenda gets > piggybacked onto and becomes a soapbox for political, commercial or other > interests. > > Generally, it should be quite safe to host dignitaries from the sponsors > to speak at lunch breaks, for example - or allow them to host separate > sessions, clearly marked "sponsor: XXXX" where those that are interested > can carry out discussions. [eg: A google public policy outreach session, > just for example]. Very similar to advertiser sponsored features in > newspapers - they're supposed to be clearly marked as such, but sometimes > aren't. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 29-Jul-2013, at 9:15, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > wrote: > > > Interesting to see how this is unraveling. I honestly thought I was the > only one here who's clueless about this procedure and was feeling pretty > foolish for not reading up/googling about it before. > > > > Given the IGF has been happening a while now, would the MAG not try to > familiarize themselves with the proposal documents in full? I'm asking out > of want, to learn - not to apportion blame. > > > > -C > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 29 01:27:17 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:27:17 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) > To: parminder > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal > > > This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the > MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary > information. confirm > Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an > official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually > offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception > of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing > ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless > I missed it). > > But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? No you are not 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 anupamagrawal.in at gmail.com Mon Jul 29 01:30:16 2013 From: anupamagrawal.in at gmail.com (Anupam Agrawal) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:00:16 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Parminder's comment on Paul and overall bringing a scandal view on IGF not appreciated. Regards Anupam Agrawal On 29-Jul-2013, at 6:15 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > So here is the answer for which parminder accused the secretariat and mag, and then waxed sarcastic at paul wilson > > Thanks for the clarification, anriette > > --srs > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) > To: parminder > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal > > > This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the > MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary > information. > > Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to > my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs. > > The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening > this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic > mandate has not changed. > > The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about > its budget and the UN Trust Fund. > > Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country > agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early > on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think > of as IGF organising principles. > > Anriette > > > On 28/07/2013 13:50, parminder wrote: > > > > On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 27/07/2013, at 3:42 PM, parminder >> > wrote: > >> > >>> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened > >>> to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' > >>> > >>> of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a > >>> pure scandal.... > >> > >> This is hopefully just naivety on the part of the local organisers, > >> who didn't appreciate the difference between the IGF and any other > >> Internet conference. > > > > Well, may be.... although we tend to be selective about whom are we > > ready to easily forgive and for what... But in any case, what about > > the IGF secretariat and the MAG. Can they also be considered naive and > > / or innocent. They obviously knew of this document. BTW, the > > document says that it is trying a new multistakeholder model for > > holding the IGFs.. Does it not then constitute an express blessing by > > the IGF secretariat and the MAG to such a 'new model'. > > > > > > IGFs are held under the UN flag and the IGF space is subject to UN > > conference rules and immunities..... Would many things in the document > > not fundamentally be violative of some of these norms and rules.... In > > other circumstances, this would have immediately led to an inquiry and > > questions being raised officially about how did the IGF secretarit and > > the MAG allow such a thing.... But we are not in normal > > circumstances, this is the times of a strong ascendency of > > neo-liberal ideology..... And those who need to have triggered the > > outrage, the civil society, seem to be happy to quietly condone it as > > well. > > > > And what about the 1 million dollar that has been raised, I would > > think, on the basis this document. Is the IGF now bound by the > > promises made under the sponsorship deals.... And if these deals are > > not valid, because we would not want to deliver on the promises, can > > we still consider to have that 1 million dollar for holding the IGF? > > > > > > parminder > > > > > > > >> They can be forgiven for this because indeed until now there has been > >> precious little difference between the IGF and any other Internet > >> conference. That this could have happened is more of an indictment > >> of the state of the IGF than of the Indonesian team. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > >> Senior Policy Officer > >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala > >> Lumpur, Malaysia > >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > >> > >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > >> knowledge hub > >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > >> > >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > >> | > >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >> > >> > >> Read our email confidentiality notice > >> . Don't > >> print this email unless necessary. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hasansf at gmail.com Mon Jul 29 02:08:10 2013 From: hasansf at gmail.com (Faisal Hasan) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:08:10 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 29, 2013 12:30 AM, "Anupam Agrawal" wrote: > > +1 > > Parminder's comment on Paul and overall bringing a scandal view on IGF not appreciated. > > Regards > Anupam Agrawal +1 Faisal > > > > On 29-Jul-2013, at 6:15 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> So here is the answer for which parminder accused the secretariat and mag, and then waxed sarcastic at paul wilson >> >> Thanks for the clarification, anriette >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) >> To: parminder >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal >> >> >> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the >> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary >> information. >> >> Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to >> my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs. >> >> The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening >> this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic >> mandate has not changed. >> >> The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about >> its budget and the UN Trust Fund. >> >> Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country >> agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early >> on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think >> of as IGF organising principles. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 28/07/2013 13:50, parminder wrote: >> > >> > On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On 27/07/2013, at 3:42 PM, parminder > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >>> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened >> >>> to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' >> >>> >> >>> of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a >> >>> pure scandal.... >> >> >> >> This is hopefully just naivety on the part of the local organisers, >> >> who didn't appreciate the difference between the IGF and any other >> >> Internet conference. >> > >> > Well, may be.... although we tend to be selective about whom are we >> > ready to easily forgive and for what... But in any case, what about >> > the IGF secretariat and the MAG. Can they also be considered naive and >> > / or innocent. They obviously knew of this document. BTW, the >> > document says that it is trying a new multistakeholder model for >> > holding the IGFs.. Does it not then constitute an express blessing by >> > the IGF secretariat and the MAG to such a 'new model'. >> > >> > >> > IGFs are held under the UN flag and the IGF space is subject to UN >> > conference rules and immunities..... Would many things in the document >> > not fundamentally be violative of some of these norms and rules.... In >> > other circumstances, this would have immediately led to an inquiry and >> > questions being raised officially about how did the IGF secretarit and >> > the MAG allow such a thing.... But we are not in normal >> > circumstances, this is the times of a strong ascendency of >> > neo-liberal ideology..... And those who need to have triggered the >> > outrage, the civil society, seem to be happy to quietly condone it as >> > well. >> > >> > And what about the 1 million dollar that has been raised, I would >> > think, on the basis this document. Is the IGF now bound by the >> > promises made under the sponsorship deals.... And if these deals are >> > not valid, because we would not want to deliver on the promises, can >> > we still consider to have that 1 million dollar for holding the IGF? >> > >> > >> > parminder >> > >> > >> > >> >> They can be forgiven for this because indeed until now there has been >> >> precious little difference between the IGF and any other Internet >> >> conference. That this could have happened is more of an indictment >> >> of the state of the IGF than of the Indonesian team. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> >> Senior Policy Officer >> >> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* >> >> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala >> >> Lumpur, Malaysia >> >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> >> >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> >> knowledge hub >> >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> >> | >> >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> >> . Don't >> >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Jul 29 04:31:02 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:31:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled In-Reply-To: <51F5925E.5020303@apc.org> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <51F50A64.30900@itforchange.net> <51F5925E.5020303@apc.org> Message-ID: At 23:51 28/07/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >But I don't see how this, if it is workable, is not part of a mixed model? Please remember that the digital name space is only being used by the Internet technology. This would only accelerate the restoration of its multitechnology polycentric appropriation. I am not sure we are ready for that. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Mon Jul 29 07:53:57 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:53:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled & thoughts about 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> Message-ID: <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org> Izumi, Let met concur that I am hearing the same thing from contacts in the country. As has been reported by other posts, discussions and efforts are underway to 1. see if the event in the country can be saved, and 2. develop possible contingency plans should the event not be able to be hosted in Indonesia. While other discussions have focused on options regarding dealing with the situation, let me advance another issue - that being the 2014 IGF. To my knowledge, no country has yet publicly stated an offer to host the event. Hopefully, a country that is far more able to support and bring the political support needed to host the IGF can step forward. regards Robert On 2013-07-28, at 12:22 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, > A friend who is with Indonesian Civil Society working with the > organizing committee sent me the following. > > ------ > > It's true that IGF 2013 committee is facing financial problem and it's likely to be cancelled. But, we have not announced official notification of the cancellation yet since now UN is trying to help us finding resources to cope with it. We will update later about the result. > > Thank you. > > ---------- > > > > 2013/7/28 Suresh Ramasubramanian > Given marilla's email, this appears to be a nonstarter, and so, moot. > > And it sounds very strange if some people were to continuously disparage a community or organization on the one hand, and demand sponsorship money from them on the other, on the grounds that the amount involved is hardly a rounding error in their revenue (or even their ebitda), just saying. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 27-Jul-2013, at 23:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Parminder wrote: > > > >> All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF > > > > Is there anyone who in view of the current debacle is still opposed to > > UN funding for the IGF? > > > >> but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding from ICANN > >> collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... Isn't that > >> the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from staist as > >> well corporate controls.... > > > > I am not sure that ICANN's collection of domain name taxes is the right > > funding model for anything (it presupposes that domain names are sold > > for a price which makes them quite unaffordable to a very significant > > number of poor people) but as long as ICANN's funding model remains as > > it currently is, in view of ICANN's financials [1], funding at least a > > significant part of the cost of IGF meetings from ICANN's budget > > indeed makes a lot of sense. > > [1] http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jul 29 08:14:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:44:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled & thoughts about 2014 In-Reply-To: <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <6990D2D9-4D59-4FAE-9641-DD4318216E3C@hserus.net> Something on this scale is best prepared and venues finalized like two years in advance. And set timelines with deadlines for specific tasks prepared as pointers for the successful local hosts. --srs (iPad) On 29-Jul-2013, at 17:23, Robert Guerra wrote: > Izumi, > > Let met concur that I am hearing the same thing from contacts in the country. > > As has been reported by other posts, discussions and efforts are underway to 1. see if the event in the country can be saved, and 2. develop possible contingency plans should the event not be able to be hosted in Indonesia. > > While other discussions have focused on options regarding dealing with the situation, let me advance another issue - that being the 2014 IGF. To my knowledge, no country has yet publicly stated an offer to host the event. Hopefully, a country that is far more able to support and bring the political support needed to host the IGF can step forward. > > regards > > Robert > > > > On 2013-07-28, at 12:22 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Hi, >> A friend who is with Indonesian Civil Society working with the >> organizing committee sent me the following. >> >> ------ >> >> It's true that IGF 2013 committee is facing financial problem and it's likely to be cancelled. But, we have not announced official notification of the cancellation yet since now UN is trying to help us finding resources to cope with it. We will update later about the result. >> >> Thank you. >> >> ---------- >> >> >> >> 2013/7/28 Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> Given marilla's email, this appears to be a nonstarter, and so, moot. >>> >>> And it sounds very strange if some people were to continuously disparage a community or organization on the one hand, and demand sponsorship money from them on the other, on the grounds that the amount involved is hardly a rounding error in their revenue (or even their ebitda), just saying. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 27-Jul-2013, at 23:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> > Parminder wrote: >>> > >>> >> All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF >>> > >>> > Is there anyone who in view of the current debacle is still opposed to >>> > UN funding for the IGF? >>> > >>> >> but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding from ICANN >>> >> collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... Isn't that >>> >> the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from staist as >>> >> well corporate controls.... >>> > >>> > I am not sure that ICANN's collection of domain name taxes is the right >>> > funding model for anything (it presupposes that domain names are sold >>> > for a price which makes them quite unaffordable to a very significant >>> > number of poor people) but as long as ICANN's funding model remains as >>> > it currently is, in view of ICANN's financials [1], funding at least a >>> > significant part of the cost of IGF meetings from ICANN's budget >>> > indeed makes a lot of sense. >>> > [1] http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials >>> > >>> > Greetings, >>> > Norbert >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >>> > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >>> > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Jul 29 08:29:08 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:29:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled & thoughts about 2014 In-Reply-To: <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org> Message-ID: At 13:53 29/07/2013, Robert Guerra wrote: >Izumi, >Let met concur that I am hearing the same thing from contacts in the country. >As has been reported by other posts, discussions and efforts are >underway to 1. see if the event in the country can be saved, and 2. >develop possible contingency plans should the event not be able to >be hosted in Indonesia. >While other discussions have focused on options regarding dealing >with the situation, let me advance another issue - that being the >2014 IGF. To my knowledge, no country has yet publicly stated an >offer to host the event. Hopefully, a country that is far more able >to support and bring the political support needed to host the IGF >can step forward. As documented earlier, all this seems convenient enough for some. It would surprising they would not be buzy trying to take advantage of the situation. Technically, this looks like a "bifurcation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_theory). jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jul 29 08:37:37 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:07:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled & thoughts about 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org> Message-ID: You didn't complete one of those sentences, Monsieur. "... for some". What / who are those "some"? --srs (iPad) On 29-Jul-2013, at 17:59, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 13:53 29/07/2013, Robert Guerra wrote: >> Izumi, >> Let met concur that I am hearing the same thing from contacts in the country. >> As has been reported by other posts, discussions and efforts are underway to 1. see if the event in the country can be saved, and 2. develop possible contingency plans should the event not be able to be hosted in Indonesia. >> While other discussions have focused on options regarding dealing with the situation, let me advance another issue - that being the 2014 IGF. To my knowledge, no country has yet publicly stated an offer to host the event. Hopefully, a country that is far more able to support and bring the political support needed to host the IGF can step forward. > > As documented earlier, all this seems convenient enough for some. It would surprising they would not be buzy trying to take advantage of the situation. Technically, this looks like a "bifurcation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_theory). > jfc > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jul 29 08:52:33 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:52:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] importance of having your own domain name In-Reply-To: <42419E82-F182-4B44-85A4-74E111C29A7F@gmail.com> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <42419E82-F182-4B44-85A4-74E111C29A7F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130729145233.79a91029@quill> George Sadowsky wrote: > Most domain names can be used for under US $10 per year. There are very many people with such a financial situation that to them, US $10 per year is prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, there are very many people who could afford US $10 per year but who don't have access to a credit card or equivalent means of payment through which they could transact a US $10 payment to a registrar of their choice. > In addition, > you do not need to have a domain name to make very productive use of > the INternet. Sure, but then you have a very unhealthy dependency on whatever company owns the domain name that has become part of your contact information. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jul 29 08:54:15 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:54:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: [Internet Policy] Background on UN funding rules---question for the group Message-ID: <20130729145415.5059005f@quill> Does anyone here have this information, or know how to find it easily? Greetings, Norbert Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:52:54 -0700 Von: Patrick Ryan An: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" Betreff: [Internet Policy] Background on UN funding rules---question for the group Hi all, As we try and help find a solution to the funding crisis at the IGF, somebody that we all respect posted on a separate thread the existence of a UN Resolution and Rules that constrain the ability for contributions. Here's an excerpt from that email thread: *Indonesia, as a UN Member State, is bound by the legislative mandate set > forth by the UN General Assembly. As a Member States, Indonesia was > part of the decision making process in developing these rules in form > of a GA Resolution. The Host Country Agreement (HCA) builds on this > GA Resolution and specifies the obligations of the Host Country. I > explained the very basic principle in a lengthy email to another > list: all the costs arising from holding a meeting away from HQ need > to be borne by the Host Country. We may or may not like these rules > and can discuss this at length, but this is simply a waste of time, > as any amendment or change would have to go through the UN General > Assembly.* Although the Indonesians want help with the venue and hosting costs, we've known for a while that their main concern is paying money to the UN itself for their costs. I've been unaware of any UN Resolution or Rule that requires the host country to bear those costs, or any rule that sets forth constraints as noted above. *If anybody has this information (the UN Resolution or Rule referenced above), I would be most grateful if you could please share it.* Thank you, Patrick ------ *patrick ryan * public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 29 08:56:57 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:26:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] importance of having your own domain name In-Reply-To: <20130729145233.79a91029@quill> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <42419E82-F182-4B44-85A4-74E111C29A7F@gmail.com> <20130729145233.79a91029@quill> Message-ID: Back to ICT for the poor. Which is good. Now, if someone is in poverty and needs access to ICT, what is the incremental value provided to him or her by a domain name? --srs (iPad) On 29-Jul-2013, at 18:22, Norbert Bollow wrote: > George Sadowsky wrote: > >> Most domain names can be used for under US $10 per year. > > There are very many people with such a financial situation that to > them, US $10 per year is prohibitively expensive. > > Furthermore, there are very many people who could afford US $10 per > year but who don't have access to a credit card or equivalent means > of payment through which they could transact a US $10 payment to a > registrar of their choice. > >> In addition, >> you do not need to have a domain name to make very productive use of >> the INternet. > > Sure, but then you have a very unhealthy dependency on whatever company > owns the domain name that has become part of your contact information. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jul 29 09:17:59 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:17:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] importance of having your own domain name In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <42419E82-F182-4B44-85A4-74E111C29A7F@gmail.com> <20130729145233.79a91029@quill> Message-ID: <20130729151759.3cf41fb2@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Now, if someone is in poverty and needs access to ICT, what is the > incremental value provided to him or her by a domain name? I don't claim to know a lot about this kind of situation. I try to imagine the situation of someone whose Internet use might be primarily by means of an email address of their own, accessed perhaps through a cheap cell phone or in some way that does not actually presuppose ownership of any communication device (for example through a friend's cell phone, or through a public telecentre of some kind, etc.) If we had a situation in which when you get your first email address, you automatically get a domain name of your own to go along with it at no extra charge, the poor person will be able to change email service providers without the email address actually changing. I think that is a very significant benefit if for example the service quality of an email service provider deteriorates, or the price is hiked. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 29 09:22:06 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fw: [Internet Policy] Background on UN funding rules---question for the group In-Reply-To: <20130729145415.5059005f@quill> References: <20130729145415.5059005f@quill> Message-ID: <1375104126.4940.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  "all the costs arising from holding a meeting away from HQ need to be borne by the Host Country." It will be important to see such a UN Resolution.  And additionnally, the IGF  Host Country Agreement itself. Going by former UN meetings (including summits) that I have attended, outside of New York and Geneva, I will doubt this affirmation. What does "all the costs" imply? N Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Norbert Bollow To: IGC Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 12:54 PM Subject: [governance] Fw: [Internet Policy] Background on UN funding rules---question for the group Hi all, As we try and help find a solution to the funding crisis at the IGF, somebody that we all respect posted on a separate thread the existence of a UN Resolution and Rules that constrain the ability for contributions.  Here's an excerpt from that email thread: Indonesia, as a UN Member State, is bound by the legislative mandate set forth by the UN General Assembly. As a Member States, Indonesia was part of the decision making process in developing these rules in form of a GA Resolution. The Host Country Agreement (HCA) builds on this GA Resolution and  specifies the obligations of the Host Country. I explained the very basic principle in a lengthy email to another list: all the costs arising from holding a meeting away from HQ need to be borne by the Host Country. We may or may not like these rules and can discuss this at length, but this is simply a waste of time, as any amendment or change would have to go through the UN General Assembly. Although the Indonesians want help with the venue and hosting costs, we've known for a while that their main concern is paying money to the UN itself for their costs.  I've been unaware of any UN Resolution or Rule that requires the host country to bear those costs, or any rule that sets forth constraints as noted above. If anybody has this information (the UN Resolution or Rule referenced above), I would be most grateful if you could please share it. Thank you, Patrick ------ patrick ryan  public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346 Does anyone here have this information, or know how to find it easily? Greetings, Norbert Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:52:54 -0700 Von: Patrick Ryan An: "internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org" Betreff: [Internet Policy] Background on UN funding rules---question for the group Hi all, As we try and help find a solution to the funding crisis at the IGF, somebody that we all respect posted on a separate thread the existence of a UN Resolution and Rules that constrain the ability for contributions. Here's an excerpt from that email thread: *Indonesia, as a UN Member State, is bound by the legislative mandate set > forth by the UN General Assembly. As a Member States, Indonesia was > part of the decision making process in developing these rules in form > of a GA Resolution. The Host Country Agreement (HCA) builds on this > GA Resolution and  specifies the obligations of the Host Country. I > explained the very basic principle in a lengthy email to another > list: all the costs arising from holding a meeting away from HQ need > to be borne by the Host Country. We may or may not like these rules > and can discuss this at length, but this is simply a waste of time, > as any amendment or change would have to go through the UN General > Assembly.* Although the Indonesians want help with the venue and hosting costs, we've known for a while that their main concern is paying money to the UN itself for their costs.  I've been unaware of any UN Resolution or Rule that requires the host country to bear those costs, or any rule that sets forth constraints as noted above. *If anybody has this information (the UN Resolution or Rule referenced above), I would be most grateful if you could please share it.* Thank you, Patrick ------ *patrick ryan * public policy & gov't relations sr. counsel, free expression and int'l relations patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346 _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 29 09:32:42 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:02:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] importance of having your own domain name In-Reply-To: <20130729151759.3cf41fb2@quill> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <42419E82-F182-4B44-85A4-74E111C29A7F@gmail.com> <20130729145233.79a91029@quill> <20130729151759.3cf41fb2@quill> Message-ID: If portability of email address is all the utility you see, there are any number of free subdomain providers that let you point your MX anywhere you please (eg: dynamic dns services) And not all domains are $10. Domains being a commodity, more than one registrar periodically runs sales where they sell you domain names (like an indian registrar was offering .in domain names for 99 rupees a year - which is $1.66 --srs (iPad) On 29-Jul-2013, at 18:47, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Now, if someone is in poverty and needs access to ICT, what is the >> incremental value provided to him or her by a domain name? > > I don't claim to know a lot about this kind of situation. I try > to imagine the situation of someone whose Internet use might be > primarily by means of an email address of their own, accessed perhaps > through a cheap cell phone or in some way that does not actually > presuppose ownership of any communication device (for example through a > friend's cell phone, or through a public telecentre of some kind, etc.) > > If we had a situation in which when you get your first email address, > you automatically get a domain name of your own to go along with it at > no extra charge, the poor person will be able to change email service > providers without the email address actually changing. > > I think that is a very significant benefit if for example the > service quality of an email service provider deteriorates, or the price > is hiked. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Jul 29 11:19:18 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:19:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: [Internet Policy] Background on UN funding rules---question for the group In-Reply-To: <1375104126.4940.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130729145415.5059005f@quill> <1375104126.4940.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Jul 29 11:18:57 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:18:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who/what are the "some"? In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org> Message-ID: At 14:37 29/07/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >You didn't complete one of those sentences, Monsieur. >"... for some". What / who are those "some"? Hi! Suresh, I fully documented them during the last few says. We are, for a year, in a fundamental transition which concerns the very nature of the Internet. I listed for you my last mails on the matter at http://iucg.org/wiki/IGF.Caucus_July_2013 Have a good reading. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jul 29 13:21:53 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:21:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130729192153.41cf2df4@quill> Anriette Esterhuysen : > Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Yes I did - both for the version on Google docs and for the somewhat different version that was quite prominently on the host country website until very recently (it was still there the day before yesterday, but it's gone now.) > Assuming it is an > official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually > offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. It is true that it did not come quite as low as that, but it nevertheless went quite far on the path of commercialization - acceptable for a commercial conference, but IMO quite unacceptable for a UN conference or any other kind of diplomatic process. Apparently the perspective of the relevant people at the UN on this is similar to mine. Markus Kummer recently (Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:08:42 +0200 to be precise, i.e. 12 minutes ago) posted the following on ISOC's Internet Policy mailing list: : As regards the commercialization of the event, the UN is very clear : in this regard: this is a no go area and I understand that the IGF : Secretariat requested them to withdraw this document back in : February. As far as I know it has not been on their website for some : time. Unquote Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jul 29 13:46:59 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:46:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: [Internet Policy] Background on UN funding rules---question for the group In-Reply-To: <1375104126.4940.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130729145415.5059005f@quill> <1375104126.4940.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20130729194659.7ef13906@quill> Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >  "all the costs arising from holding a meeting away from HQ need to > be borne by the Host Country." It will be important to see such a UN > Resolution.  And additionnally, the IGF  Host Country Agreement > itself. According to Markus Kummer, the Host Country Agreement for the Bali IGF hasn't been signed yet, but it is “normal” for that to happen “shortly before the meeting.” Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jul 29 15:38:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:08:04 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF) that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question - the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal. That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in which the Internet evolves and is governed. But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it, speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.) That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society..... Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few days there has been no civil society response to this outrage. The institution - of civil society - that is supposed to be the watchdog against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more loyal than the king..... I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with with the Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document. parminder On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote: >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) >> To: parminder >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal >> >> >> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the >> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary >> information. > confirm > >> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an >> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception >> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing >> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless >> I missed it). >> >> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? > No you are not > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fundraising proposal IGF2013 - rev10b.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1493926 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon Jul 29 16:03:32 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 22:03:32 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> Dear Parminder I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points, Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an organisation) whose views I generally respect. I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an example of Nairobi. If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide sponsors branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would be pleasantly surprised. I also said that some of the claims about the document were not accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the Indonesian IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, let's at least read their document carefully, and ask questions before moving into attack mode. I did not express support for the document, or for the specific approach to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, however, that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events that I have been involved in - certainly those in developing countries. Much as I don't like this approach, I have come to learn over the years that even UN events or events hosted by governments often have to depend on this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation). If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in the IGF process. It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit alternative models. Anriette On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote: > > So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as > also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF) > that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question - > the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal. > That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take > this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the > possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in > which the Internet evolves and is governed. > > But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair > has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it, > speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been > withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it > suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.) > > That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has > faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment > on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society..... > Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few > days there has been no civil society response to this outrage. The > institution - of civil society - that is supposed to be the watchdog > against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more > loyal than the king..... > > I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a > detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in > which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with with the > Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document. > > parminder > > On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) >>> To: parminder >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," >>> ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - >>> and the corporatisation scandal >>> >>> >>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the >>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary >>> information. >> confirm >> >>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an >>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible >>> exception >>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for >>> closing >>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless >>> I missed it). >>> >>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? >> No you are not >> >> Bill > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Mon Jul 29 16:23:10 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 22:23:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <20130729192153.41cf2df4@quill> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> <20130729192153.41cf2df4@quill> Message-ID: <51F6CF2E.8050009@apc.org> Thanks for this Norbert. Do we know if the document was being actively used to raise funds or secure sponsorships? On 29/07/2013 19:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Anriette Esterhuysen : > >> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? > Yes I did - both for the version on Google docs and for the somewhat > different version that was quite prominently on the host country > website until very recently (it was still there the day before > yesterday, but it's gone now.) > >> Assuming it is an >> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. > It is true that it did not come quite as low as that, but it > nevertheless went quite far on the path of commercialization - > acceptable for a commercial conference, but IMO quite unacceptable for > a UN conference or any other kind of diplomatic process. Agree.. it did not go quite as far as that, which was what I was trying to point out. And yes - I agree with you completely, the tone made it sound like a commercial conference. My first reaction was also that it looked as if they were letting people who sponsor come in and dominate proceedings, but then I looked more closely. As I said previously, I was not expressing approval of this commercial.. just saying I have seen it before, including in regional IGFs - and global IGFs have not been free of branding. Anriette > > Apparently the perspective of the relevant people at the UN on this is > similar to mine. > > Markus Kummer recently (Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:08:42 +0200 to be > precise, i.e. 12 minutes ago) posted the following on ISOC's Internet > Policy mailing list: > > : As regards the commercialization of the event, the UN is very clear > : in this regard: this is a no go area and I understand that the IGF > : Secretariat requested them to withdraw this document back in > : February. As far as I know it has not been on their website for some > : time. Unquote > > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 29 20:18:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 05:48:58 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <465EDF64-3446-4279-84FE-3F903290071D@hserus.net> In which case, though complaining to the list management, in my opinion, has a strong smell of "running to the teacher to complain", I am reluctantly compelled to request the co-cos to review Parminder's posts on this thread, especially the ones calling Paul Wilson's and the MAG / IGF secretariat's ethics into question. That said, it is clear that the document is ambiguously worded - and I can see that people have drawn different inferences from it, ranging from display of logos in the foyer areas and recommending speakers for official ceremonies all the way to "cash for slots". This could well be a communication gap - I will certainly keep an open mind on this till someone from the Indonesian team clarifies what they meant. Given Anriette's perspective on this, I perhaps wouldn't have used the "cash for slots" term given that the plenaries and workshops clearly remain untouched. --srs (iPad) On 30-Jul-2013, at 1:08, parminder wrote: > > So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF) that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question - the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal. That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in which the Internet evolves and is governed. > > But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it, speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.) > > That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society..... Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few days there has been no civil society response to this outrage. The institution - of civil society - that is supposed to be the watchdog against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more loyal than the king..... > > I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with with the Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document. > > parminder > > On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) >>> To: parminder >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal >>> >>> >>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the >>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary >>> information. >> confirm >> >>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an >>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception >>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing >>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless >>> I missed it). >>> >>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? >> No you are not >> >> Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jul 29 23:37:34 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 23:37:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Godwin in Forbes Message-ID: http://www.forbes.com/sites/skollworldforum/2013/07/21/in-the-world-of-internet-policy-online-freedom-hangs-in-the-balance/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Tue Jul 30 00:49:49 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 00:49:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Godwin in Forbes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "activists have to look beyond digital technologies and protest tactics to secure long-term policy frameworks that protect online expression and privacy. The sooner we achieve international social consensus about this, the sooner we will understand how to manage the complex blend of individual privileges and responsibilities that come with life in the digital age." +1 On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:37 PM, McTim wrote: > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/skollworldforum/2013/07/21/in-the-world-of-internet-policy-online-freedom-hangs-in-the-balance/ > > -- > 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 > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jul 30 01:02:39 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:02:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Godwin in Forbes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b037gxx5/Privacy_Under_Pressure_Episode_3/ "Privacy Under Pressure - Episode 3 Concluding his series, Steve Hewlett and guests discuss the state of privacy today, where it might be heading and how individuals and society should respond." Earlier episodes available from sites such as (not that I condone, etc etc) Adam On Jul 30, 2013, at 1:49 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > "activists have to look beyond digital technologies and protest tactics to secure long-term policy frameworks that protect online expression and privacy. The sooner we achieve international social consensus about this, the sooner we will understand how to manage the complex blend of individual privileges and responsibilities that come with life in the digital age." > > +1 > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:37 PM, McTim wrote: > http://www.forbes.com/sites/skollworldforum/2013/07/21/in-the-world-of-internet-policy-online-freedom-hangs-in-the-balance/ > > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Jul 30 01:40:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:10:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F6CF2E.8050009@apc.org> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> <20130729192153.41cf2df4@quill> <51F6CF2E.8050009@apc.org> Message-ID: <51F751E1.9080200@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:53 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks for this Norbert. Do we know if the document was being actively > used to raise funds or secure sponsorships? But how does that matter if similar practices, as you say, has always been followed, and consequently can be considered to have become the norm in the IGF context? BTW i did raise this particular question in my initial postings on the issue as a serious thing that we need to have information on... Also, the right place, I would think, to ask this question is on the MAG list, and perhaps then to inform us about the response... parminder > > On 29/07/2013 19:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Anriette Esterhuysen : >> >>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? >> Yes I did - both for the version on Google docs and for the somewhat >> different version that was quite prominently on the host country >> website until very recently (it was still there the day before >> yesterday, but it's gone now.) >> >>> Assuming it is an >>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. >> It is true that it did not come quite as low as that, but it >> nevertheless went quite far on the path of commercialization - >> acceptable for a commercial conference, but IMO quite unacceptable for >> a UN conference or any other kind of diplomatic process. > Agree.. it did not go quite as far as that, which was what I was trying > to point out. > > And yes - I agree with you completely, the tone made it sound like a > commercial conference. My first reaction was also that it looked as if > they were letting people who sponsor come in and dominate proceedings, > but then I looked more closely. > > As I said previously, I was not expressing approval of this commercial.. > just saying I have seen it before, including in regional IGFs - and > global IGFs have not been free of branding. > > Anriette > > > > >> Apparently the perspective of the relevant people at the UN on this is >> similar to mine. >> >> Markus Kummer recently (Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:08:42 +0200 to be >> precise, i.e. 12 minutes ago) posted the following on ISOC's Internet >> Policy mailing list: >> >> : As regards the commercialization of the event, the UN is very clear >> : in this regard: this is a no go area and I understand that the IGF >> : Secretariat requested them to withdraw this document back in >> : February. As far as I know it has not been on their website for some >> : time. Unquote >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jul 30 02:39:45 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:39:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fw: [Internet Policy] Background on UN funding rules---question for the group In-Reply-To: <1375104126.4940.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130729145415.5059005f@quill> <1375104126.4940.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3sa0pfDx+19RFAyX@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <1375104126.4940.YahooMailNeo at web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, at 06:22:06 on Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Nnenna writes > > "all the costs arising from holding a meeting away from HQ need to be >borne by the Host Country." ... >What does "all the costs" imply I believe (having seen similar host country agreements, for major ITU events) this is the transportation and accommodation costs of the UN personnel who are necessary to run the meeting. Plus hiring of some of the equipment like photocopiers and booths for the translators, and providing space on-site for all of this to be located. -- 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 Tue Jul 30 04:42:38 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:42:38 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <465EDF64-3446-4279-84FE-3F903290071D@hserus.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <465EDF64-3446-4279-84FE-3F903290071D@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130730104238.1681ef24@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > In which case, though complaining to the list management, in my > opinion, has a strong smell of "running to the teacher to complain", > I am reluctantly compelled to request the co-cos to review > Parminder's posts on this thread As should be clear by now, nobody is going to get an official response to "running to the teacher to complain" type of postings. But it might be appropriate for me to make clear, in my personal capacity, that I have carefully checked the specifics of what Parminder wrote about that fund-raising doc against the document itself, in fact in regard to both versions of the document. (The differences between the two versions of the document are not relevant to Parminder's criticism.) Parminder's descriptions were accurate in regard to both versions. It is in my opinion totally appropriate to be alarmed and cry "scandal". If that isn't done, we should expect things to get worse and worse and it will in significant part be our fault for not having spoken out when we should have done so. The majority of responses in this threat so far have been either seeking to downplay the issue, or are attacking Parminder for being energetic in raising it, or both. Like Parminder, I honestly don't understand how on earth anyone can possibly care about democracy and not be alarmed about that commercialization process. If similar things have (on a smaller scale) happened at previous IGFs, without official written documentation, that should not be a reason not to react strongly at this point when it has been put in writing as an official document on the host country website. If this “civil society” caucus on the whole is of the opinion that a strong reaction to the scandalous commercialization trend is not warranted, and that on the contrary it is appropriate to criticize the critic, then I'm going to seriously doubt whether I can with good conscience continue to be associated with the IGC. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jul 30 04:57:07 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:27:07 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <20130730104238.1681ef24@quill> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <465EDF64-3446-4279-84FE-3F903290071D@hserus.net> <20130730104238.1681ef24@quill> Message-ID: <1402ecb6b83.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> After reading anriette's email I think we should try to get a response from the local team on their specific intent before further criticism. I still don't see how calling the mag and paul Wilson's ethics into question and attributing malicious intentions to the mag count as being 'energetic' That said, I do agree that if there is any attempt to commercialize the igf it needs to be stopped. There seems to be a lack of consensus on whether there actually was such an attempt and i see that the Indonesian team has already been talked to. --srs (htc one x) On 30 July 2013 2:12:38 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > In which case, though complaining to the list management, in my > > opinion, has a strong smell of "running to the teacher to complain", > > I am reluctantly compelled to request the co-cos to review > > Parminder's posts on this thread > > As should be clear by now, nobody is going to get an official response > to "running to the teacher to complain" type of postings. > > But it might be appropriate for me to make clear, in my personal > capacity, that I have carefully checked the specifics of what Parminder > wrote about that fund-raising doc against the document itself, in fact > in regard to both versions of the document. (The differences between > the two versions of the document are not relevant to Parminder's > criticism.) > > Parminder's descriptions were accurate in regard to both versions. > > It is in my opinion totally appropriate to be alarmed and cry > "scandal". > > If that isn't done, we should expect things to get worse and worse and > it will in significant part be our fault for not having spoken out when > we should have done so. > > The majority of responses in this threat so far have been either > seeking to downplay the issue, or are attacking Parminder for being > energetic in raising it, or both. > > Like Parminder, I honestly don't understand how on earth anyone can > possibly care about democracy and not be alarmed about that > commercialization process. > > If similar things have (on a smaller scale) happened at previous IGFs, > without official written documentation, that should not be a reason not > to react strongly at this point when it has been put in writing as an > official document on the host country website. > > If this “civil society” caucus on the whole is of the opinion that a > strong reaction to the scandalous commercialization trend is not > warranted, and that on the contrary it is appropriate to criticize the > critic, then I'm going to seriously doubt whether I can with good > conscience continue to be associated with the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Jul 30 05:20:44 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:20:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F751E1.9080200@itforchange.net> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> <20130729192153.41cf2df4@quill> <51F6CF2E.8050009@apc.org> <51F751E1.9080200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F7856C.3060707@apc.org> I will raise this question (about if and how the document was used, and if this is different from previous IGFs etc.) at tomorrow's MAG meeting. Btw, the meeting is open to observers. Anriette On 30/07/2013 07:40, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:53 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Thanks for this Norbert. Do we know if the document was being actively >> used to raise funds or secure sponsorships? > > But how does that matter if similar practices, as you say, has always > been followed, and consequently can be considered to have become the > norm in the IGF context? > > BTW i did raise this particular question in my initial postings on the > issue as a serious thing that we need to have information on... > > Also, the right place, I would think, to ask this question is on the > MAG list, and perhaps then to inform us about the response... > > parminder > > >> >> On 29/07/2013 19:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Anriette Esterhuysen : >>> >>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? >>> Yes I did - both for the version on Google docs and for the somewhat >>> different version that was quite prominently on the host country >>> website until very recently (it was still there the day before >>> yesterday, but it's gone now.) >>> >>>> Assuming it is an >>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. >>> It is true that it did not come quite as low as that, but it >>> nevertheless went quite far on the path of commercialization - >>> acceptable for a commercial conference, but IMO quite unacceptable for >>> a UN conference or any other kind of diplomatic process. >> Agree.. it did not go quite as far as that, which was what I was trying >> to point out. >> >> And yes - I agree with you completely, the tone made it sound like a >> commercial conference. My first reaction was also that it looked as if >> they were letting people who sponsor come in and dominate proceedings, >> but then I looked more closely. >> >> As I said previously, I was not expressing approval of this commercial.. >> just saying I have seen it before, including in regional IGFs - and >> global IGFs have not been free of branding. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >>> Apparently the perspective of the relevant people at the UN on this is >>> similar to mine. >>> >>> Markus Kummer recently (Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:08:42 +0200 to be >>> precise, i.e. 12 minutes ago) posted the following on ISOC's Internet >>> Policy mailing list: >>> >>> : As regards the commercialization of the event, the UN is very clear >>> : in this regard: this is a no go area and I understand that the IGF >>> : Secretariat requested them to withdraw this document back in >>> : February. As far as I know it has not been on their website for some >>> : time. Unquote >>> >>> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 30 05:31:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:31:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F6CF2E.8050009@apc.org> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> <20130729192153.41cf2df4@quill> <51F6CF2E.8050009@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130730113139.0abf7b43@quill> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks for this Norbert. Do we know if the document was being actively > used to raise funds or secure sponsorships? We know that the document was prominently on the host country website until it was taken down either on Sunday July 28 or on Monday July 29, i.e. it was there while commitments for US$900k were secured in addition to the funds offered by the Indonesian government. If the event goes forward in Bali, of course the sponsors for the US$900k will be expecting to get what they have been promised. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jul 30 06:14:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:14:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] importance of having your own domain name In-Reply-To: References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <42419E82-F182-4B44-85A4-74E111C29A7F@gmail.com> <20130729145233.79a91029@quill> <20130729151759.3cf41fb2@quill> Message-ID: <20130730121406.351e811a@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > If portability of email address is all the utility you see, there are > any number of free subdomain providers that let you point your MX > anywhere you please (eg: dynamic dns services) What I'm saying is needed is something like what is provided by the free subdomain providers, yes, but with a much higher profile so that it's not just something of potential interest to a relatively small number of geeks, but something that you get for free as part of whatever package includes your first email address. Also there should be some assurance that the free domains don't get arbitrarily removed from the Internet. In particular, as long as the person who is responsible for a particular subdomain does nothing wrong, there must be an assurance that the domain won't get taken down on the basis of whatever people who are in charge or other subdomains of the same 2LD might be doing. The takedown of 3322.org sets a very unfortunate precedent in that regard. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jul 30 06:18:29 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:18:29 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:38 AM, parminder wrote: > > So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF) About the "so called" AP regional IGF. See Apologies for the cross posting. The process is open to anyone. Mailing lists are open, e.g. . Mailing lists have public archives e.g. . Late 2012 through 2013, lengthy discussions (see list archives) about improving process of organizing/holding a regional AP IGF resulted in the creation of a multi-stakeholder steering group , anyone can join. At the same time a Request For Proposals to host an APrIGF was drafted (see list archives), the 2014 process will start soon. List members issued an open call for themes of the meeting and workshops (call widely distributed, expect most on these lists will have seen), evaluation conducted through the open lists (see archives). Sponsor page . September 4-6, 2013, Seoul, Korea. Can always do better. Best, Adam > that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question - the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal. That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in which the Internet evolves and is governed. > > But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it, speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.) > > That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society..... Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few days there has been no civil society response to this outrage. The institution - of civil society - that is supposed to be the watchdog against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more loyal than the king..... > > I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with with the Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document. > > parminder > > On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>> >>> >>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) >>> To: parminder >>> >>> >>> Cc: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal >>> >>> >>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the >>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary >>> information. >>> >> confirm >> >> >>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an >>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception >>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing >>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless >>> I missed it). >>> >>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? >>> >> No you are not >> >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Jul 30 06:20:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:50:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] importance of having your own domain name In-Reply-To: <20130730121406.351e811a@quill> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <42419E82-F182-4B44-85A4-74E111C29A7F@gmail.com> <20130729145233.79a91029@quill> <20130729151759.3cf41fb2@quill> <20130730121406.351e811a@quill> Message-ID: <235D5EB4-416D-4549-9C3B-D0684D5273B2@hserus.net> You know, most of these free or cheap services - besides the big ones like google, hotmail etc - are run by small hole in the wall outfits, that crop up and die out on a fairly frequent basis. And most such startups aren't doing email these days, they've shifted to social media. If you want something that is extremely cheap AND has a cast iron guarantee of being around, it had better be a government provided service - except that comes with its very own can of worms (i am sure many people here remember what an internet / email service run by a government owned telco was like, from say 15 years back) The 3322 takedown was necessary in some lights given the huge amount of malware that 3322 hosted without any let or hindrance - but it was unfortunate. I wrote about this on circleid back when the incident took place, and it was covered by Brian Krebs in his krebs on security blog as well, presenting two or three different points of view on the situation. --srs (iPad) On 30-Jul-2013, at 15:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> If portability of email address is all the utility you see, there are >> any number of free subdomain providers that let you point your MX >> anywhere you please (eg: dynamic dns services) > > What I'm saying is needed is something like what is provided by the > free subdomain providers, yes, but with a much higher profile so that > it's not just something of potential interest to a relatively small > number of geeks, but something that you get for free as part of whatever > package includes your first email address. > > Also there should be some assurance that the free domains don't get > arbitrarily removed from the Internet. In particular, as long as the > person who is responsible for a particular subdomain does nothing wrong, > there must be an assurance that the domain won't get taken down on the > basis of whatever people who are in charge or other subdomains of the > same 2LD might be doing. The takedown of 3322.org sets a very > unfortunate precedent in that regard. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jul 30 06:40:52 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:40:52 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Anriette, The document, both from the host website and google doc are both helpful and worrying. Helpful: we can see expected total cost, $2.2 million, not sure that's been shared before, and a detailed breakdown of the costs involved in hosting an IGF. The UN costs are not $900,000 for security or whatever the rumor last week, look to be just under $700,000: including interpretation (largest cost), scribes, web staff (i.e. remote access). Security including site visit just over $100,000 (meeting under the UN flag with the immunities and myth that provides, security required onsite as it is UN territory). Scribing costs in the past have sometimes been covered by sponsors, so the hosts might be able to cut some expenditure by passing that along to a supporter (I know they were told this...) Worrying: it is an extremely naive document, and it would be worse if the proposals were implementable: generally they're not. That it's been online for so long we have to expect it's been used, and that's bad -- seems they have raised over $1million, hopefully not based on the options in the proposal. Have to hope that the Secretariat/DESA is now explaining to the Indonesian group why it's so wrong (and not implementable). My understanding: Cannot put commercial advertising alongside the UN logo making the hosts ideas to use all literature including the book for ads/sponsorship not possible. This has been made clear on the MAG list many times over the years. Advertising inside the venue is not possible (there's the village for that purpose, and space is mainly for the community). So there goes another opportunity. The host country jointly organize the opening and closing ceremonies with the UN, they do not have an unlimited number of slots (2 or 3 including their official representatives of govt and the IGF chair), so there's nothing there for a sponsor. Hosts can appoint a chair to each main session: good luck trying to sell that, it's essentially a non-speaking roll, perhaps they person would wear a company t-shirt and cap... Not sure it's helpful you keep picking on Nairobi as if there was something wrong with how that meeting was organized. See the partner pages, the main sponsors were Kenyan govt ministries or agencies. Compare to the list of speakers and the slots the host can influence; among the sponsors only IDRC got a slot (and as you know IDRC have been a very longstanding partner in ICT and Internet policy research in Kenya, a logical choice.) So what are you trying to say? There are enough people around who will pick-up on your comments as something sinister (while no doubt expecting magic funds to fly them to the next meeting.) Nairobi was interesting in the effort made to link the IGF to the local community: lectures by some of the notable IGF guests organized at local universities, visits to the iHub, meetings with industry groups, meetings with local civil society. I know this kind of arms-length value-add was explained to the Indonesian host team, but seems they have ignored. Baku had problems: the hosts seemed to want to link the IGF to their local IT exhibition "Bakutel" (the conference in the other half of the meeting facility.) UN made clear that the UN logo and IGF brand could not be used. Some rumor that the two were linked in local press, but nothing on site. A problem just about dodged there. Egypt where Suzanne Mubarak's billion dollar scams took center stage. There needs to be clarity about what's permitted and what's not, hope you will raise this in the MAG. Not just the UN rules about it's logo and how ads/promotion inside the venue, but standards we as a community think appropriate for the IGF. Also need to ask what the IGF improvement group looked at in terms of funding and sustainability? What recommendations about commercial tie-in, what's acceptable (we need funds) and what's not? A lesson from all this is people CS recommends to these working groups must report back and seek advice from the community, collectively we might be able to reach sensible decisions. Best, Adam On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Parminder > > I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". > > You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points, > Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch > into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an > organisation) whose views I generally respect. > > I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar > branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an example > of Nairobi. > > If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide sponsors > branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would be > pleasantly surprised. > > I also said that some of the claims about the document were not > accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots > for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the Indonesian > IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, let's at least > read their document carefully, and ask questions before moving into > attack mode. > > I did not express support for the document, or for the specific approach > to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, however, > that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events that I > have been involved in - certainly those in developing countries. Much as > I don't like this approach, I have come to learn over the years that > even UN events or events hosted by governments often have to depend on > this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation). > > If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against > these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in the > IGF process. > > It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first > learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we > have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit > alternative models. > > Anriette > > > On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote: >> >> So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as >> also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF) >> that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question - >> the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal. >> That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take >> this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the >> possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in >> which the Internet evolves and is governed. >> >> But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair >> has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it, >> speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been >> withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it >> suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.) >> >> That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has >> faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment >> on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society..... >> Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few >> days there has been no civil society response to this outrage. The >> institution - of civil society - that is supposed to be the watchdog >> against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more >> loyal than the king..... >> >> I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a >> detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in >> which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with with the >> Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document. >> >> parminder >> >> On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote: >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) >>>> To: parminder >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," >>>> ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - >>>> and the corporatisation scandal >>>> >>>> >>>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the >>>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary >>>> information. >>> confirm >>> >>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an >>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible >>>> exception >>>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for >>>> closing >>>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless >>>> I missed it). >>>> >>>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? >>> No you are not >>> >>> Bill >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 dvbirve at yandex.ru Tue Jul 30 06:49:54 2013 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:49:54 +0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F7856C.3060707@apc.org> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> <20130729192153.41cf2df4@quill> <51F6CF2E.8050009@apc.org> <51F751E1.9080200@itforchange.net> <51F7856C.3060707@apc.org> Message-ID: <287621375181394@web9f.yandex.ru> Dear Anriette, when and where the meeting will take place? 30.07.2013, 13:21, "Anriette Esterhuysen" : > I will raise this question (about if and how the document was used, and > if this is different from previous IGFs etc.) at tomorrow's MAG meeting. > > Btw, the meeting is open to observers. > > Anriette > > On 30/07/2013 07:40, parminder wrote: > >>  On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:53 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>  Thanks for this Norbert. Do we know if the document was being actively >>>  used to raise funds or secure sponsorships? >>   But how does that matter if similar practices, as you say, has always >>  been followed, and consequently can be considered to have become the >>  norm in the IGF context? >> >>  BTW i did raise this particular question in my initial postings on the >>  issue as a serious thing that we need to have information on... >> >>  Also, the right place, I would think, to ask this question is on the >>  MAG list, and perhaps then to inform us about the response... >> >>  parminder >>>  On 29/07/2013 19:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>  Anriette Esterhuysen : >>>>>  Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? >>>>  Yes I did - both for the version on Google docs and for the somewhat >>>>  different version that was quite prominently on the host country >>>>  website until very recently (it was still there the day before >>>>  yesterday, but it's gone now.) >>>>>  Assuming it is an >>>>>  official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>>>>  offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. >>>>  It is true that it did not come quite as low as that, but it >>>>  nevertheless went quite far on the path of commercialization - >>>>  acceptable for a commercial conference, but IMO quite unacceptable for >>>>  a UN conference or any other kind of diplomatic process. >>>  Agree.. it did not go quite as far as that, which was what I was trying >>>  to point out. >>> >>>  And yes - I agree with you completely, the tone made it sound like a >>>  commercial conference. My first reaction was also that it looked as if >>>  they were letting people who sponsor come in and dominate proceedings, >>>  but then I looked more closely. >>> >>>  As I said previously, I was not expressing approval of this commercial.. >>>  just saying I have seen it before, including in regional IGFs - and >>>  global IGFs have not been free of branding. >>> >>>  Anriette >>>>  Apparently the perspective of the relevant people at the UN on this is >>>>  similar to mine. >>>> >>>>  Markus Kummer recently (Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:08:42 +0200 to be >>>>  precise, i.e. 12 minutes ago) posted the following on ISOC's Internet >>>>  Policy mailing list: >>>> >>>>  : As regards the commercialization of the event, the UN is very clear >>>>  : in this regard: this is a no go area and I understand that the IGF >>>>  : Secretariat requested them to withdraw this document back in >>>>  : February. As far as I know it has not been on their website for some >>>>  : time. Unquote >>>> >>>>  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 -- Отправлено из быстрой Яндекс.Почты http://mail.yandex.ru/neo2/collect/?exp=1&t=5 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 30 06:54:43 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:54:43 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130730125443.0e727aae@quill> Adam Peake wrote: > The document, both from the host website and google doc are both > helpful and worrying. > Helpful: we can see expected total cost, $2.2 million, not sure > that's been shared before, and a detailed breakdown of the costs > involved in hosting an IGF. The UN costs are not $900,000 for > security or whatever the rumor last week, look to be just under > $700,000: including interpretation (largest cost), scribes, web staff > (i.e. remote access). The rumor said that at $900,000 the UN costs were looking to be larger than expected, maybe that doc represents what had been expected and now it turned out that the actual UN costs were going to be as high as $900,000... in other words, I don't view the document as evidence of the rumor being inaccurate. > Worrying: it is an extremely naive document, and it would be worse if > the proposals were implementable: generally they're not. That it's > been online for so long we have to expect it's been used, and that's > bad -- seems they have raised over $1million, hopefully not based on > the options in the proposal. Of the over $1million for which reportedly commitments have been obtained, the $250k from the Indonesian government would have been not based on the promises in the proposal nor on similar or stronger individually negotiated promises. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jul 30 07:00:40 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:00:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <287621375181394@web9f.yandex.ru> References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net> <14025391af1.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130728162202.109d504f@quill> <14025c86c43.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F588DD.9080903@apc.org> <20130729192153.41cf2df4@quill> <51F6CF2E.8050009@apc.org> <51F751E1.9080200@itforchange.net> <51F7856C.3060707@apc.org> <287621375181394@web9f.yandex.ru> Message-ID: <790EA25B-3271-4EB7-ADAC-B2BF776DD378@glocom.ac.jp> On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:49 PM, Shcherbovich Andrey wrote: > Dear Anriette, > > when and where the meeting will take place? > The meeting will be online. Information from IGF secretariat to MAG list below. Adam > Dear All, > > Please find below the connection information for Wednesday's virtual meeting. > > Best regards > > Chengetai > > > Topic: MAG Virtual Meeting III > Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 > Time: 11:00 am UTC > Meeting Number: 955 620 167 > Meeting Password: IGF2013 > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the online meeting (Now from mobile devices!) > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=222425792&UID=0&PW=NMGVkMTJjNGIx&RT=MiMyMw%3D%3D > 2. If requested, enter your name and email address. > 3. If a password is required, enter the meeting password: IGF2013 > 4. Click "Join". > > To view in other time zones or languages, please click the link: > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=222425792&UID=0&PW=NMGVkMTJjNGIx&ORT=MiMyMw%3D%3D > > ------------------------------------------------------- > To join the audio conference only > ------------------------------------------------------- > Call-in toll number (UK): +44-203-478-5289 > Global call-in numbers: https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MC&ED=222425792&tollFree=0 > > Access code:955 620 167 > > ------------------------------------------------------- > For assistance > ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Go to https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/mc > 2. On the left navigation bar, click "Support". > > You can contact me at: > cmasango at unog.ch > > > To update this meeting to your calendar program (for example Microsoft Outlook), click this link: > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/j.php?ED=222425792&UID=0&ICS=MRS3&LD=1&RD=2&ST=1&SHA2=AAAAAt6Nja7bRlDsejywzUMOxvLSXowrk8B1dWA6webqHdrd&RT=MiMyMw%3D%3D > > > WebEx will automatically setup Meeting Manager for Windows the first time you join a meeting. To save time, you can setup prior to the meeting by clicking this link: > https://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/meetingcenter/mcsetup.php > > > The playback of UCF (Universal Communications Format) rich media files requires appropriate players. To view this type of rich media files in the meeting, please check whether you have the players installed on your computer by going tohttps://intgovforum.webex.com/intgovforum/systemdiagnosis.php. > > Sign up for a free trial of WebEx > http://www.webex.com/go/mcemfreetrial > > http://www.webex.com > > CCP:+442034785289x955620167# > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This WebEx service includes a feature that allows audio and any documents and other materials exchanged or viewed during the session to be recorded. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to the recording, discuss your concerns with the meeting host prior to the start of the recording or do not join the session. Please note that any such recordings may be subject to discovery in the event of litigation. > > 30.07.2013, 13:21, "Anriette Esterhuysen" : >> I will raise this question (about if and how the document was used, and >> if this is different from previous IGFs etc.) at tomorrow's MAG meeting. >> >> Btw, the meeting is open to observers. >> >> Anriette >> >> On 30/07/2013 07:40, parminder wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:53 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> Thanks for this Norbert. Do we know if the document was being actively >>>> used to raise funds or secure sponsorships? >>> But how does that matter if similar practices, as you say, has always >>> been followed, and consequently can be considered to have become the >>> norm in the IGF context? >>> >>> BTW i did raise this particular question in my initial postings on the >>> issue as a serious thing that we need to have information on... >>> >>> Also, the right place, I would think, to ask this question is on the >>> MAG list, and perhaps then to inform us about the response... >>> >>> parminder >>>> On 29/07/2013 19:21, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen : >>>>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? >>>>> Yes I did - both for the version on Google docs and for the somewhat >>>>> different version that was quite prominently on the host country >>>>> website until very recently (it was still there the day before >>>>> yesterday, but it's gone now.) >>>>>> Assuming it is an >>>>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>>>>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. >>>>> It is true that it did not come quite as low as that, but it >>>>> nevertheless went quite far on the path of commercialization - >>>>> acceptable for a commercial conference, but IMO quite unacceptable for >>>>> a UN conference or any other kind of diplomatic process. >>>> Agree.. it did not go quite as far as that, which was what I was trying >>>> to point out. >>>> >>>> And yes - I agree with you completely, the tone made it sound like a >>>> commercial conference. My first reaction was also that it looked as if >>>> they were letting people who sponsor come in and dominate proceedings, >>>> but then I looked more closely. >>>> >>>> As I said previously, I was not expressing approval of this commercial.. >>>> just saying I have seen it before, including in regional IGFs - and >>>> global IGFs have not been free of branding. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>>> Apparently the perspective of the relevant people at the UN on this is >>>>> similar to mine. >>>>> >>>>> Markus Kummer recently (Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:08:42 +0200 to be >>>>> precise, i.e. 12 minutes ago) posted the following on ISOC's Internet >>>>> Policy mailing list: >>>>> >>>>> : As regards the commercialization of the event, the UN is very clear >>>>> : in this regard: this is a no go area and I understand that the IGF >>>>> : Secretariat requested them to withdraw this document back in >>>>> : February. As far as I know it has not been on their website for some >>>>> : time. Unquote >>>>> >>>>> 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 > > -- > Отправлено из быстрой Яндекс.Почты > http://mail.yandex.ru/neo2/collect/?exp=1&t=5 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Jul 30 10:32:22 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:32:22 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> Message-ID: On 30 Jul 2013, at 13:12, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Instead of rehashing past errors of judgement I wonder if it would be helpful, in moving forward, for civil society groups to discuss how to prevent capture of global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of international events? I think this is a good approach to take. I would add that it is probably best to do this without the vitriol and accusations we sometimes see from some of our members/participants. 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 30 10:47:10 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 07:47:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> Message-ID: <1375195630.47869.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> +1 I have scheduled myself to be an observer at the MAG meeting of tomorrow. I am hopeful that we can start discussions here about how to make future meetings better and more transparent.  I see that there are sections: security, content, logistics, which kind of corresponds to UN, MAG and Host country. Will be listening keenly to discussions along these lines. Best N ________________________________ From: Avri Doria To: Best Bits ; IGC Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal On 30 Jul 2013, at 13:12, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Instead of rehashing past errors of judgement I wonder if it would be helpful, in moving forward, for civil society groups to discuss how to prevent capture of global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of international events? I think this is a good approach to take.  I would add that it is probably best to do this without the vitriol and accusations we sometimes see from some of our members/participants. thanks avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Jul 30 11:31:58 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:31:58 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> Message-ID: <51F7DC6E.7070103@apc.org> Dear Adam Responses below. On 30/07/2013 12:40, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Anriette, > > The document, both from the host website and google doc are both helpful and worrying. > > Helpful: we can see expected total cost, $2.2 million, not sure that's been shared before, and a detailed breakdown of the costs involved in hosting an IGF. The UN costs are not $900,000 for security or whatever the rumor last week, look to be just under $700,000: including interpretation (largest cost), scribes, web staff (i.e. remote access). Security including site visit just over $100,000 (meeting under the UN flag with the immunities and myth that provides, security required onsite as it is UN territory). Scribing costs in the past have sometimes been covered by sponsors, so the hosts might be able to cut some expenditure by passing that along to a supporter (I know they were told this...) Agree..it is helpful, but what would be really helpful would be more transparency on IGF financing all round. As well as on UN processes and rules and requirements. > Worrying: it is an extremely naive document, and it would be worse if the proposals were implementable: generally they're not. That it's been online for so long we have to expect it's been used, and that's bad -- seems they have raised over $1million, hopefully not based on the options in the proposal. Have to hope that the Secretariat/DESA is now explaining to the Indonesian group why it's so wrong (and not implementable). > > My understanding: > > Cannot put commercial advertising alongside the UN logo making the hosts ideas to use all literature including the book for ads/sponsorship not possible. This has been made clear on the MAG list many times over the years. Advertising inside the venue is not possible (there's the village for that purpose, and space is mainly for the community). So there goes another opportunity. Good to have this confirmed. My memory is not always reliable, but I do recall seeing sponsors material in IGF bags, and also banners.. but perhaps that was just in the exhibition areas. In Baku I think there were banners from some sponsors inside the venue. And at other IGF's I recall seeing some sponsor banners outside the main venue, and in the gala venues...but I might be wrong. > The host country jointly organize the opening and closing ceremonies with the UN, they do not have an unlimited number of slots (2 or 3 including their official representatives of govt and the IGF chair), so there's nothing there for a sponsor. Hosts can appoint a chair to each main session: good luck trying to sell that, it's essentially a non-speaking roll, perhaps they person would wear a company t-shirt and cap... In the Google doc (that is the only doc I saw) the offer to 'open or close' sessions was only there for governments. The offer to nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony was made to the private sector. I am not at all expressing approval for this. But my point was that this does not exactly amount to 'speaking slots for cash'. > Not sure it's helpful you keep picking on Nairobi as if there was something wrong with how that meeting was organized. I did not mean to say there was something wrong with how Nairobi was organised. I know how hard Alice and the rest of the team worked to organise it. My point is actually that I don't think it is possible for a host country with limited resources to host an IGF without additional financial support. > See the partner pages, the main sponsors were Kenyan govt ministries or agencies. Compare to the list of speakers and the slots the host can influence; among the sponsors only IDRC got a slot (and as you know IDRC have been a very longstanding partner in ICT and Internet policy research in Kenya, a logical choice.) So what are you trying to say? There are enough people around who will pick-up on your comments as something sinister (while no doubt expecting magic funds to fly them to the next meeting.) I should probably just go back to not posting to the governance list at all. It is hard to find the time to draft messages so carefully that they are not misinterpreted. Please do read my messages again. I was not criticising the Kenyan IGF. I also did not say that previous IGFs 'sold' speaking slots. I said that they do give branding opportunity to sponsors, and that I would be surprised if sponsors did not get invitations to events/dinners, etc.. But this is very different from allowing sponsors to influence the agenda. IDRC had a speaking slot and a moderating slot if I recall. APC proposed IDRC people as speakers and moderators, so their presence might have had nothing to do with their sponsorship. I simply pointed to the Nairobi website to make the point that host countries have previously given sponsors some branding, and used the 'bronze/gold' etc. categories for sponsorships. The African IGF also used this last year. The Baku IGF website also acknowledges sponsors - http://igf2012.com/ I was NOT picking on Kenya!! > Nairobi was interesting in the effort made to link the IGF to the local community: lectures by some of the notable IGF guests organized at local universities, visits to the iHub, meetings with industry groups, meetings with local civil society. I know this kind of arms-length value-add was explained to the Indonesian host team, but seems they have ignored. I think this approach used at the Nairobi IGF was fantastic, and certainly helped to make it the biggest IGF to date, and a very successful one. As for what has been explained to the Indonesians, and what they have done, I don't have enough knowledge about it pass judgement. We need to hear from them. > > Baku had problems: the hosts seemed to want to link the IGF to their local IT exhibition "Bakutel" (the conference in the other half of the meeting facility.) UN made clear that the UN logo and IGF brand could not be used. Some rumor that the two were linked in local press, but nothing on site. A problem just about dodged there. Egypt where Suzanne Mubarak's billion dollar scams took center stage. In my view, while branding for sponsors can be a problem and make the IGF look commercial, the real danger lies in precisely that kind of thing - Egypt springing the First Lady on us unexpectedly. Also the government of Azerbaijan placing speakers on the closing panel that appeared to have no other purpose other than spouting government propaganda and contradicting the repression of free speech that we experienced first hand during the event. If the Indonesian organising committee was actually selling spaces in the programme, on panels, open forums, etc.. it would extremely serious. My point was that it was not clear from that document that they were actually doing that. They seemed to be leaning overboard to get sponsors, which is risky, but not quite the same as letting sponsors buy space on the agenda. > There needs to be clarity about what's permitted and what's not, hope you will raise this in the MAG. Not just the UN rules about it's logo and how ads/promotion inside the venue, but standards we as a community think appropriate for the IGF. Will raise it. The MAG mandate is limited, but as concerns have been expressed about the Indonesian financing strategy affecting the programme and basic character of the IGF, it is important for the MAG to talk about it - and I believe for the Indonesian organising committee and the secretariat to provide clarification. This also has relevance for regional IGFs. How far should one go in establishing rules and procedures... I would think that some basic, easy to understand principles are what are needed. Here is what the secretariat developed, and placed on the IGF website. Is it enough? *IGF initiatives organizational principles* Regional and national IGF initiatives should follow the principles and practices of open, inclusive, non commercial, and multi-stakeholder participation in both formulation of the initiative and in any other initiative related events. In order to be listed on the IGF website as an IGF initiative, IGF initiatives should provide the following information to the IGF Secretariat: 1. A report of past activities indicating the members of the initiative 2. A list of members or main organizers comprising at least three representatives of different stakeholder groups 3. A dedicated webpage or website, with a contact person and a working email address The IGF initiatives are kindly requested to include in their reports the following: Description of the organising process Description of how the mutli-stakeholder model is maintained The published agenda The total number of attendees and a break down of attendance for each stakeholder group at the IGF initiatives meetings > > Also need to ask what the IGF improvement group looked at in terms of funding and sustainability? What recommendations about commercial tie-in, what's acceptable (we need funds) and what's not? A lesson from all this is people CS recommends to these working groups must report back and seek advice from the community, collectively we might be able to reach sensible decisions. The discussion in the IGF improvement working group on financing was never fully recorded, as in the end there was no consensus on what to include, or even on whether it was in our mandate or not. As Parminder has said, he, and the government of India, proposed full public funding through the UN. Some felt this was not realistic. Some UN personnel shared that there are risks attached to his as well (just look at what happened with UNESCO). Most people were able to agree to a 'mixed-model'. Commercial tie-in was touched on indirectly but not explicitly. What was discussed was the importance of contributions to the the IGF through the UN Trust Fund not being tied to influence over decision-making over the programme/secretariat hiring, etc.. Some people suggested that this was already happening. This resulted in quite a lot of tension, particularly as some of the largest donor countries were part of the working group, and they felt this was a very unfair accusation. General agreement between all in the working group was that transparency is essential and that UN Trust Fund procedures seemed quite opaque, which no one was comfortable with. The secretariat provided information that was requested, which was appreciated, but I think we were left with a feeling that the information should have been easier to get. E.g. the secretariat to request permission from the UN Trust Fund administrators in order to release certain information. We also did talk about the need for a more flexible mechanisms for funding, particularly small contributions. We did not touch on how host countries operate beyond acknowledging that their contributions are very substantial, and should be given more recognition. There was more.. but I would say that most of our discussions focused on costs of participation of people from developing countries (including speakers), and on being able to secure the financial support to strengthen the secretariat's capacity. The UN related costs did not come up. Anriette > > Best, > > Adam > > > On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear Parminder >> >> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". >> >> You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points, >> Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch >> into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an >> organisation) whose views I generally respect. >> >> I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar >> branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an example >> of Nairobi. >> >> If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide sponsors >> branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would be >> pleasantly surprised. >> >> I also said that some of the claims about the document were not >> accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots >> for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the Indonesian >> IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, let's at least >> read their document carefully, and ask questions before moving into >> attack mode. >> >> I did not express support for the document, or for the specific approach >> to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, however, >> that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events that I >> have been involved in - certainly those in developing countries. Much as >> I don't like this approach, I have come to learn over the years that >> even UN events or events hosted by governments often have to depend on >> this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation). >> >> If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against >> these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in the >> IGF process. >> >> It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first >> learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we >> have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit >> alternative models. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote: >>> So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as >>> also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF) >>> that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question - >>> the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal. >>> That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take >>> this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the >>> possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in >>> which the Internet evolves and is governed. >>> >>> But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair >>> has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it, >>> speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been >>> withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it >>> suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.) >>> >>> That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has >>> faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment >>> on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society..... >>> Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few >>> days there has been no civil society response to this outrage. The >>> institution - of civil society - that is supposed to be the watchdog >>> against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more >>> loyal than the king..... >>> >>> I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a >>> detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in >>> which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with with the >>> Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote: >>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>>>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) >>>>> To: parminder >>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," >>>>> ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - >>>>> and the corporatisation scandal >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the >>>>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary >>>>> information. >>>> confirm >>>> >>>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an >>>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>>>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible >>>>> exception >>>>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for >>>>> closing >>>>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless >>>>> I missed it). >>>>> >>>>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? >>>> No you are not >>>> >>>> Bill >>> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 30 12:18:01 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:18:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F7DC6E.7070103@apc.org> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7DC6E.7070103@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130730181801.1800fca0@quill> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > On 30/07/2013 12:40, Adam Peake wrote: > > There needs to be clarity about what's permitted and what's not, > > hope you will raise this in the MAG. Not just the UN rules about > > it's logo and how ads/promotion inside the venue, but standards we > > as a community think appropriate for the IGF. > > Will raise it. The MAG mandate is limited, but as concerns have been > expressed about the Indonesian financing strategy affecting the > programme and basic character of the IGF, it is important for the MAG > to talk about it - and I believe for the Indonesian organising > committee and the secretariat to provide clarification. Anriette, many thanks in advance. Much appreciated. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 30 12:54:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:24:45 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> Message-ID: <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Parminder > > I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". Anriette Your email to which I responded ends as follows " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding." It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your position that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian organising group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it. Please justify how your above comment means anything else. No I dont twist words, but try to untwist twisted words, so that a clear responsible political dialogue can take place. (Meanwhile, as I asked before, if you believe that there is nothing new or odd with what the Indonesian organising group did, as per your above statement, I dont know what questions are you going to ask the MAG tomorrow, and why would you care to ask them. Sorry, I also tend to point out obvious inconsistencies. ) > > You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points, > Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch > into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an > organisation) whose views I generally respect. I refer these ad hominem comment to the co-coordinators for their views and decisions. I will wait for a week, till the 6th of August, to be told what views they have on these comments and whether they propose any action. If I dont get any response or get a response that no action is contemplated, I will proceed to express my views on what I think 'Anriette does' on this list in a similarly unconstrained manner as she has expressed personalised views about me... > > I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar > branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an example > of Nairobi. If you know of similar questionable things being done earlier, it for you to have pointed them out, and to point them out now... No, i dont know of them. Adam's email suggests that things were rather fine and straight at Kenya. I really remember no company logos hanging around, nor I am sure speaking/ chairing slots were proposed or given against donations. parminder > > If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide sponsors > branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would be > pleasantly surprised. > > I also said that some of the claims about the document were not > accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots > for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the Indonesian > IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, let's at least > read their document carefully, and ask questions before moving into > attack mode. > > I did not express support for the document, or for the specific approach > to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, however, > that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events that I > have been involved in - certainly those in developing countries. Much as > I don't like this approach, I have come to learn over the years that > even UN events or events hosted by governments often have to depend on > this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation). > > If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against > these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in the > IGF process. > > It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first > learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we > have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit > alternative models. > > Anriette > > > On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote: >> So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as >> also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF) >> that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question - >> the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal. >> That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take >> this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the >> possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in >> which the Internet evolves and is governed. >> >> But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair >> has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it, >> speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been >> withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it >> suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.) >> >> That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has >> faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment >> on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society..... >> Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few >> days there has been no civil society response to this outrage. The >> institution - of civil society - that is supposed to be the watchdog >> against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more >> loyal than the king..... >> >> I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a >> detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in >> which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with with the >> Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document. >> >> parminder >> >> On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote: >>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) >>>> To: parminder >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," >>>> ,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - >>>> and the corporatisation scandal >>>> >>>> >>>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the >>>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary >>>> information. >>> confirm >>> >>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an >>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible >>>> exception >>>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for >>>> closing >>>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless >>>> I missed it). >>>> >>>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? >>> No you are not >>> >>> 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Jul 30 13:05:40 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:05:40 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0530, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >Dear Parminder > > > >I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". > Anriette > > Your email to which I responded ends as follows > > " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is > selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see > evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of > branding." > It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your > position that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian organising > group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it. > Please justify how your above comment means anything else. Parminder, No offence intended but I'm utterly unable to understand how you can interpret Anriette's words the way you do. I don't see anything in her words you're quoting as indicating an approval of what the Indonesian group did. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 30 13:22:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:52:12 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <51F7F644.7020304@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 10:35 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0530, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > >> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Dear Parminder >>> >>> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". >> Anriette >> >> Your email to which I responded ends as follows >> >> " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is >> selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see >> evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of >> branding." >> It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your >> position that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian organising >> group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it. >> Please justify how your above comment means anything else. > Parminder, > > No offence intended but I'm utterly unable to understand how > you can interpret Anriette's words the way you do. > I don't see anything in her words you're quoting as > indicating an approval of what the Indonesian group did. Tapani I did not speak of her approving, only of her not disapproving ('nothing wrong with'), which is what her words clearly amount to. ... ... parminder > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Jul 30 13:29:40 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled & thoughts about 2014 In-Reply-To: <6990D2D9-4D59-4FAE-9641-DD4318216E3C@hserus.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org> <6990D2D9-4D59-4FAE-9641-DD4318216E3C@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1375205380.95430.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> It is also possible that everything was planned for and put in place, and at the eleventh hour they received additional costs from the UN. I also wonder if there was a political change of heart once the full impact of thee cost and principle of Internet governance and the proposed debates. The net publicity generated by this "rumor could be catalytic in capturing the attention of key players which also could result in change of policy at UN level regarding funding  or offers of funding to come through for this year or for the next. Shaila     The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Suresh Ramasubramanian To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Robert Guerra Cc: Internet Governance Caucus Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [governance] IGFCancelled & thoughts about 2014 Something on this scale is best prepared and venues finalized like two years in advance.  And set timelines with deadlines for specific tasks prepared as pointers for the successful local hosts. --srs (iPad) On 29-Jul-2013, at 17:23, Robert Guerra wrote: Izumi, > > >Let met concur that I am hearing the same thing from contacts in the country. > > >As has been reported by other posts, discussions and efforts are underway to 1.  see if the event in the country can be saved, and 2. develop possible contingency plans should the event not be able to be hosted in Indonesia. > > >While other discussions have focused on options regarding dealing with the situation, let me advance another issue - that being the 2014 IGF. To my knowledge, no country has yet publicly stated an offer to host the event. Hopefully, a country that is far more able to support and bring the political support needed to host the IGF can step forward.  > > >regards > > >Robert > > > > > > >On 2013-07-28, at 12:22 AM, IzumiAIZU wrote: > >Hi, >>A friend who is with Indonesian Civil Society working with the >>organizing committee sent me the following. >> >> >>------ >> It's true that IGF 2013 committee is facing financial problem and it's likely to be cancelled. But, we have not announced official notification of the cancellation yet since now UN is trying to help us finding resources to cope with it. We will update later about the result.  >> >> >>Thank you. >> >> >>---------- >> >> >> >> >> >>2013/7/28 Suresh Ramasubramanian >> >>Given marilla's email, this appears to be a nonstarter, and so, moot. >>> >>>And it sounds very strange if some people were to continuously disparage a community or organization on the one hand, and demand sponsorship money from them on the other, on the grounds that the amount involved is hardly a rounding error in their revenue (or even their ebitda), just saying. >>> >>>--srs (iPad) >>> >>> >>>On 27-Jul-2013, at 23:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> Parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF >>>> >>>> Is there anyone who in view of the current debacle is still opposed to >>>> UN funding for the IGF? >>>> >>>>> but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding from ICANN >>>>> collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... Isn't that >>>>> the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from staist as >>>>> well corporate controls.... >>>> >>>> I am not sure that ICANN's collection of domain name taxes is the right >>>> funding model for anything (it presupposes that domain names are sold >>>> for a price which makes them quite unaffordable to a very significant >>>> number of poor people) but as long as ICANN's funding model remains as >>>> it currently is, in view of ICANN'sfinancials [1], funding at least a >>>> significant part of the cost of IGF meetings from ICANN's budget >>>> indeed makes a lot of sense. >>>> [1] http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >>>> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >>>> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >>>> >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> >>-- >>                     >> IzumiAizu << >>Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,           >>Japan >>www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 30 13:40:57 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:10:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled & thoughts about 2014 In-Reply-To: <1375205380.95430.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org> <6990D2D9-4D59-4FAE-9641-DD4318216E3C@hserus.net> <1375205380.95430.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51F7FAA9.1010508@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 10:59 PM, shaila mistry wrote: > It is also possible that everything was planned for and put in place, > and at the eleventh hour they received additional costs from the UN. BTW, what is the source of the information that there was indeed a sudden additional costs been communicated from the UN, about the cost shown in the Indonesian funding strategy document.... parminder > I also wonder if there was a political change of heart once the full > impact of thee cost and principle of Internet governance and the > proposed debates. > > The net publicity generated by this "rumor could be catalytic in > capturing the attention of key players which also could result in > change of policy at UN level regarding funding or offers of funding > to come through for this year or for the next. > > Shaila > > > *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* > *..................... the renaissance of composure ! > * > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Robert Guerra > *Cc:* Internet Governance Caucus > *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 5:14 AM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF Cancelled & thoughts about 2014 > > Something on this scale is best prepared and venues finalized like two > years in advance. And set timelines with deadlines for specific tasks > prepared as pointers for the successful local hosts. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 29-Jul-2013, at 17:23, Robert Guerra > wrote: > >> Izumi, >> >> Let met concur that I am hearing the same thing from contacts in the >> country. >> >> As has been reported by other posts, discussions and efforts are >> underway to 1. see if the event in the country can be saved, and 2. >> develop possible contingency plans should the event not be able to be >> hosted in Indonesia. >> >> While other discussions have focused on options regarding dealing >> with the situation, let me advance another issue - that being the >> 2014 IGF. To my knowledge, no country has yet publicly stated an >> offer to host the event. Hopefully, a country that is far more able >> to support and bring the political support needed to host the IGF can >> step forward. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> On 2013-07-28, at 12:22 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> A friend who is with Indonesian Civil Society working with the >>> organizing committee sent me the following. >>> >>> ------ >>> >>> It's true that IGF 2013 committee is facing financial problem and >>> it's likely to be cancelled. But, we have not announced official >>> notification of the cancellation yet since now UN is trying to help >>> us finding resources to cope with it. We will update later about the >>> result. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> ---------- >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/7/28 Suresh Ramasubramanian >> > >>> >>> Given marilla's email, this appears to be a nonstarter, and so, >>> moot. >>> >>> And it sounds very strange if some people were to continuously >>> disparage a community or organization on the one hand, and >>> demand sponsorship money from them on the other, on the grounds >>> that the amount involved is hardly a rounding error in their >>> revenue (or even their ebitda), just saying. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 27-Jul-2013, at 23:44, Norbert Bollow >> > wrote: >>> >>> > Parminder >> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF >>> > >>> > Is there anyone who in view of the current debacle is still >>> opposed to >>> > UN funding for the IGF? >>> > >>> >> but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding >>> from ICANN >>> >> collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... >>> Isn't that >>> >> the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from >>> staist as >>> >> well corporate controls.... >>> > >>> > I am not sure that ICANN's collection of domain name taxes is >>> the right >>> > funding model for anything (it presupposes that domain names >>> are sold >>> > for a price which makes them quite unaffordable to a very >>> significant >>> > number of poor people) but as long as ICANN's funding model >>> remains as >>> > it currently is, in view of ICANN's financials [1], funding at >>> least a >>> > significant part of the cost of IGF meetings from ICANN's budget >>> > indeed makes a lot of sense. >>> > [1] http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials >>> > >>> > Greetings, >>> > Norbert >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation >>> in IGC: >>> > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to >>> the person >>> > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> Japan >>> www.anr.org >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jul 30 13:46:00 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:16:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF Cancelled & thoughts about 2014 In-Reply-To: <51F7FAA9.1010508@itforchange.net> References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org> <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net> <51F36505.8040505@itforchange.net> <20130727201409.764451ff@quill> <6C2BFD9F-C70E-40A8-8D16-C50152C990DF@privaterra.org> <6990D2D9-4D59-4FAE-9641-DD4318216E3C@hserus.net> <1375205380.95430.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <51F7FAA9.1010508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51F7FBD8.20004@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 11:10 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 July 2013 10:59 PM, shaila mistry wrote: >> It is also possible that everything was planned for and put in place, >> and at the eleventh hour they received additional costs from the UN. > > BTW, what is the source of the information that there was indeed a > sudden additional costs been communicated from the UN, about the cost > shown in the Indonesian funding strategy document.... parminder sorry, meant 'above the cost shown in the Indonesian funding strategy document;,,,, > > >> I also wonder if there was a political change of heart once the full >> impact of thee cost and principle of Internet governance and the >> proposed debates. >> >> The net publicity generated by this "rumor could be catalytic in >> capturing the attention of key players which also could result in >> change of policy at UN level regarding funding or offers of funding >> to come through for this year or for the next. >> >> Shaila >> >> >> *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !* >> *..................... the renaissance of composure ! >> * >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian >> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> ; Robert Guerra >> *Cc:* Internet Governance Caucus >> *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 5:14 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF Cancelled & thoughts about 2014 >> >> Something on this scale is best prepared and venues finalized like >> two years in advance. And set timelines with deadlines for specific >> tasks prepared as pointers for the successful local hosts. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 29-Jul-2013, at 17:23, Robert Guerra > > wrote: >> >>> Izumi, >>> >>> Let met concur that I am hearing the same thing from contacts in the >>> country. >>> >>> As has been reported by other posts, discussions and efforts are >>> underway to 1. see if the event in the country can be saved, and 2. >>> develop possible contingency plans should the event not be able to >>> be hosted in Indonesia. >>> >>> While other discussions have focused on options regarding dealing >>> with the situation, let me advance another issue - that being the >>> 2014 IGF. To my knowledge, no country has yet publicly stated an >>> offer to host the event. Hopefully, a country that is far more able >>> to support and bring the political support needed to host the IGF >>> can step forward. >>> >>> regards >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2013-07-28, at 12:22 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> A friend who is with Indonesian Civil Society working with the >>>> organizing committee sent me the following. >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> >>>> It's true that IGF 2013 committee is facing financial problem and >>>> it's likely to be cancelled. But, we have not announced official >>>> notification of the cancellation yet since now UN is trying to help >>>> us finding resources to cope with it. We will update later about >>>> the result. >>>> >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> ---------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/7/28 Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> > >>>> >>>> Given marilla's email, this appears to be a nonstarter, and so, >>>> moot. >>>> >>>> And it sounds very strange if some people were to continuously >>>> disparage a community or organization on the one hand, and >>>> demand sponsorship money from them on the other, on the grounds >>>> that the amount involved is hardly a rounding error in their >>>> revenue (or even their ebitda), just saying. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 27-Jul-2013, at 23:44, Norbert Bollow >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> > Parminder >>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> All of them opposed UN funding for the IGF >>>> > >>>> > Is there anyone who in view of the current debacle is still >>>> opposed to >>>> > UN funding for the IGF? >>>> > >>>> >> but can they explain why they opposed 'committed' funding >>>> from ICANN >>>> >> collected Internet taxes, say of 2 million every year... >>>> Isn't that >>>> >> the right model of funding the IGF , keeping if safe from >>>> staist as >>>> >> well corporate controls.... >>>> > >>>> > I am not sure that ICANN's collection of domain name taxes is >>>> the right >>>> > funding model for anything (it presupposes that domain names >>>> are sold >>>> > for a price which makes them quite unaffordable to a very >>>> significant >>>> > number of poor people) but as long as ICANN's funding model >>>> remains as >>>> > it currently is, in view of ICANN's financials [1], funding >>>> at least a >>>> > significant part of the cost of IGF meetings from ICANN's budget >>>> > indeed makes a lot of sense. >>>> > [1] http://www.icann.org/en/about/financials >>>> > >>>> > Greetings, >>>> > Norbert >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation >>>> in IGC: >>>> > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to >>>> the person >>>> > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you >>>> accept >>>> > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>>> Japan >>>> www.anr.org >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jul 30 19:50:29 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:20:29 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F7F644.7020304@itforchange.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> <51F7F644.7020304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <14031fd5fcc.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> She does not approve, you say She does not disapprove, you say. And then you report her responding to your personal attack to the co cos. It would be interesting to see what the co cos think here. --srs (htc one x) On 30 July 2013 10:52:12 PM parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 July 2013 10:35 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0530, parminder > (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >>> Dear Parminder > >>> > >>> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". > >> Anriette > >> > >> Your email to which I responded ends as follows > >> > >> " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is > >> selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see > >> evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of > >> branding." > >> It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your > >> position that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian organising > >> group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it. > >> Please justify how your above comment means anything else. > > Parminder, > > > > No offence intended but I'm utterly unable to understand how > > you can interpret Anriette's words the way you do. > > I don't see anything in her words you're quoting as > > indicating an approval of what the Indonesian group did. > Tapani > > I did not speak of her approving, only of her not disapproving ('nothing > wrong with'), which is what her words clearly amount to. ... ... parminder > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Tue Jul 30 21:19:32 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 03:19:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fw: [Internet Policy] Background on UN funding rules---question for the group In-Reply-To: References: <20130729145415.5059005f@quill> <1375104126.4940.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <25FC7A26-0500-49F4-865C-FF3836AEB396@hellmonds.eu> The relevant parts start on page 35 "In section I, paragraph 5, of its resolution 40/243 of 18 February 1986, the General Assembly decided that United Nations bodies might hold sessions away from their established headquarters when a Government issuing an invitation for a session to be held within its territory had agreed to defray, after consultation with the Secretary-General as to their nature and possible extent, the actual additional costs directly or indirectly involved (ST/AI/342, para. 1). In the case of special conferences, the mandating resolution normally indicates the title of the conference, the scope of its activities and the expected outcome, the dates during which it is to take place, the venue, the understanding that the Government of the host country will undertake all additional costs (often called incremental costs), the establishment of a preparatory committee for the conference, if required, or the nomination of a standing body to serve as preparatory committee, the number of sessions of that body, any other regional or preparatory meetings required, and other secretariat arrangements for ensuring proper planning of the event." " Financial obligations of the host country The following direct costs are to be covered by the host country in respect of conference servicing staff members, both for planning missions and for the conference itself (see ST/AI/342, sect. IV, for more detailed information): Travel, including excess baggage. If travel is over nine hours, business class is standard for United Nations staff members Daily subsistence allowance (DSA), at a rate determined by the International Civil Service Commission, from which staff members pay such expenses as hotel, meals, etc. Terminal expenses incurred for each trip between the airport and other point of arrival or departure, in connection with the approved itinerary Replacement of staff, if required Freight and insurance costs for sending any supplies and other materials to and from the meeting site Communications expenses, including photocopying, facsimile transmission, mobile telephones, and long-distance telephone calls required." That should clarify the general rules. -- Peter On 29.07.2013, at 17:19, JFC Morfin wrote: At 15:22 29/07/2013, Nnenna wrote: > "all the costs arising from holding a meeting away from HQ need to be borne by the Host Country." > It will be important to see such a UN Resolution. And additionnally, the IGF Host Country Agreement itself. > Going by former UN meetings (including summits) that I have attended, outside of New York and Geneva, I will doubt this affirmation. > What does "all the costs" imply? http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/050DD4A114603CE6C125712C00399A68/$file/GUIDELINES.pdf jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jul 31 03:33:03 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:03:03 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <14031fd5fcc.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> <51F7F644.7020304@itforchange.net> <14031fd5fcc.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51F8BDAF.6090902@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 05:20 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > She does not approve, you say > > She does not disapprove, you say. Precisely. And when I voice my concern about a civil society member of the MAG, as the oversight body over IGF program etc, taking such a neutral/ inactive position, I am told off by a series of personal invectives. Not done, and I would not take it. > > And then you report her responding to your personal attack to the co cos. > > It would be interesting to see what the co cos think here. I am too. Meanwhile if it has escaped the co cos notice, I cut paste the relevant portions of my email below... > > You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points, > Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch > into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an > organisation) whose views I generally respect. (Anriette) I refer these ad hominem comment to the co-coordinators for their views and decisions. I will wait for a week, till the 6th of August, to be told what views they have on these comments and whether they propose any action. If I dont get any response or get a response that no action is contemplated, I will proceed to express my views on what I think 'Anriette does' on this list in a similarly unconstrained manner as she has expressed personalised views about me... (Parminder) (cut paste ends) parminder > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 30 July 2013 10:52:12 PM parminder wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 10:35 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0530, parminder >> (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >> > >> >> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear Parminder >> >>> >> >>> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> Your email to which I responded ends as follows >> >> >> >> " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is >> >> selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see >> >> evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of >> >> branding." >> >> It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your >> >> position that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian organising >> >> group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it. >> >> Please justify how your above comment means anything else. >> > Parminder, >> > >> > No offence intended but I'm utterly unable to understand how >> > you can interpret Anriette's words the way you do. >> > I don't see anything in her words you're quoting as >> > indicating an approval of what the Indonesian group did. >> Tapani >> >> I did not speak of her approving, only of her not disapproving >> ('nothing wrong with'), which is what her words clearly amount to. >> ... ... parminder >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jul 31 03:49:59 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:19:59 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F8BDAF.6090902@itforchange.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> <51F7F644.7020304@itforchange.net> <14031fd5fcc.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F8BDAF.6090902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: But if she doesn't approve and she doesn't not disapprove .. it still means she doesn't approve of this. And the MAG has collectively told the Indonesian local team to stop this activity of theirs, so approval or disapproval or not disapproval is entirely moot here. Also - you have said multiple times on this list that you treat this as a political issue. If Anriette restates much the same thing, how does it become ad hominem? --srs (iPad) On 31-Jul-2013, at 13:03, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 July 2013 05:20 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> She does not approve, you say >> >> She does not disapprove, you say. > > Precisely. And when I voice my concern about a civil society member of the MAG, as the oversight body over IGF program etc, taking such a neutral/ inactive position, I am told off by a series of personal invectives. Not done, and I would not take it. > >> >> And then you report her responding to your personal attack to the co cos. >> >> It would be interesting to see what the co cos think here. > > I am too. Meanwhile if it has escaped the co cos notice, I cut paste the relevant portions of my email below... > > >> >> You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points, >> Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch >> into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an >> organisation) whose views I generally respect. (Anriette) > > I refer these ad hominem comment to the co-coordinators for their views and decisions. I will wait for a week, till the 6th of August, to be told what views they have on these comments and whether they propose any action. If I dont get any response or get a response that no action is contemplated, I will proceed to express my views on what I think 'Anriette does' on this list in a similarly unconstrained manner as she has expressed personalised views about me... (Parminder) > > (cut paste ends) > > parminder > > > > > > > > > >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> >> On 30 July 2013 10:52:12 PM parminder wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 10:35 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0530, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>> Dear Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". >>> >> Anriette >>> >> >>> >> Your email to which I responded ends as follows >>> >> >>> >> " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is >>> >> selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see >>> >> evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of >>> >> branding." >>> >> It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your >>> >> position that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian organising >>> >> group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it. >>> >> Please justify how your above comment means anything else. >>> > Parminder, >>> > >>> > No offence intended but I'm utterly unable to understand how >>> > you can interpret Anriette's words the way you do. >>> > I don't see anything in her words you're quoting as >>> > indicating an approval of what the Indonesian group did. >>> Tapani >>> >>> I did not speak of her approving, only of her not disapproving ('nothing wrong with'), which is what her words clearly amount to. ... ... parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meier-hahn at hiig.de Wed Jul 31 05:33:53 2013 From: meier-hahn at hiig.de (Uta Meier-Hahn) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:33:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Link tip: "Internet Governance Forum: Poor stepchild in trouble" Message-ID: Hello, this recent Internet Policy Review news article on the IGF and its funding may be of interest for the list: *Internet Governance Forum: Poor stepchild in trouble* Will the IGF 2013 take place in Bali or not? News is expected any hour now. Yet those close to the process are sure that the event will not be cancelled despite financial troubles. http://policyreview.info/articles/news/internet-governance-forum-poor-stepchild-trouble/183 Best, uta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jul 31 06:49:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:49:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Commercialisation of the Bali IGF -> Anriette's questions Message-ID: <20130731124911.3e104919@quill> FYI... here is copy of the “Commercialisation of the Bali IGF” related questions that Anriette has circulated to the MAG list with a request for them to be addressed at the MAG meeting that is to start shortly (together with a few other questions). (forwarded with permission) Greetings, Norbert --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ Commercialisation of the Bali IGF represented by the funding/sponsorship document from the Indonesian organising committee circulated in the last few days. - What is the status of this document? The copy I saw was on Google docs, but I believe it has the same content as the one on the Host country website marked as "revision 10b". It has since been removed. - Is the Indonesian strategy (as represented in this document and if it was indeed a formal document) different from previous IGF host country sponsorship and branding strategies and does it comply with UN criteria? Can we confirm that the organisers were aware of these criteria? - Does the approach to sponsorship in the document risk sponsors having influence over the IGF agenda and character? - Was the document used and referenced in conversations with sponsors or donors who have committed support? I.o.w. are they are any sponsors who expect promises made in the document to be kept? - Would not delivering on these promises put any of the money already raised by the Indonesian organising committee at risk? - More generally, what is permitted and what is not in terms of branding/banners/benefits for sponsors? - How does UNDESA and the Secretariat ensure compliance with these rules or standards? --snap------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Jul 31 08:50:12 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:50:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] No need to prove OpenStand In-Reply-To: <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jul 31 09:02:38 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:02:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.) Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to the 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet. The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price. So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Jul 31 09:12:12 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:12:12 +0500 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> Message-ID: Norbet, Many thanks for sharing the updates, from MAG as observer. Since this is important development. Thanks & Regards Sincerely Asif Kabani ------- *Stay Connected* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] Join - NGLs (Diplo-ISOC) https://www.facebook.com/groups/NGLsISOC/ *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 31 July 2013 18:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > observer.) > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to the > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > not booked yet. > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > price. > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > simply been declared dead. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Jul 31 09:22:01 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:22:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> Message-ID: I would add that 3 non-financial issues were raised - the access (providing visas) and freedom of expression provisions of the host country agreement (mentioned by Chengetai near the beginning of the meeting, and "Article 7" about security - mentioned by the spokesperson from Indonesia near the end. I had problems hearing properly what he was saying. Deirdre On 31 July 2013 09:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > observer.) > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to the > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > not booked yet. > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > price. > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > simply been declared dead. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 31 09:42:50 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> Message-ID: <1375278170.51504.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  I also listened in as an observer. There was a feedback from someone from Indonesia saying the Ministry of Economy and Finance is considering the "Bali"  file. And Chengetai that said "IGF 2013 will hold" The next MAG call will be Tuesday next week at 13h00 UCT (GMT) Hopefully, by then,we will begin to know: 1. If Indonesia is still HC 2. If Bali is still the venue 3. If the dates are still maintained N ________________________________ From: Deirdre Williams To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call I would add that 3 non-financial issues were raised - the access (providing visas) and freedom of expression provisions of the host country agreement (mentioned by Chengetai near the beginning of the meeting, and "Article 7" about security - mentioned by the spokesperson from Indonesia near the end. I had problems hearing properly what he was saying. Deirdre On 31 July 2013 09:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >observer.) > >Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to the >2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > >The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >not booked yet. > >The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >price. > >So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >simply been declared dead. > >Greetings, >Norbert > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jul 31 10:38:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:38:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet' Message-ID: <20130731163842.6225636e@quill> XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet' http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Jul 31 11:36:32 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:36:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> Message-ID: <51F92F00.4090407@apc.org> Thanks for the report Norbert. Here are a few other notes I thought would be interesting: The host country agreement includes basic non-negotiables such as the host country cannot refuse delegates entry or exit and immunity must be guaranteed for everything that is said inside meeting rooms. The representative from Indonesia indicated that they have not had any concerns with the HCA, other than something about policy protection which I could not hear that clearly. Host country agreements are generally not concluded until late in the process, and, they don't seem to relate to the funding of the event in any detail. The Indonesian organisers have raised $1 million and need about another $900,000. This amount could look different if certain in-kind contributions are taking into account. MAG members agreed that: - getting the funding is not the only concern, a clear commitment from the Indonesians is what is most needed at this point - the UN should be asked to be as flexible about its costs as possible - we should pursue a dual strategy: try to have IGF in Bali, but also pursue alternatives which Norbert outlines below. In addition to Norbert's confirmation that the IGF is not in direct danger of being commercialised here is a bit more feedback on the questions I asked about branding and sponsors: No logos allowed in conference space. Logos/branding allowed outside the venue, or in the exhibition space, and on material distributed inside IGF bags. In the past the UN enforced these rules, e.g. in Rio a commercial co-organiser was asked to take banners down and in Egypt local sponsors could put their banners outside the premises where they could be seen but where they were not in official UN space. Chengetai also said that if a sponsor is providing information about their IG activities, the promotion would be permissable. I assume this would apply to material placed in the bags, for example. Not just any material would be accepted. I did not get the impression that anything had been formally promised to sponsors of the Bali IGF that would violate these limits. It seemed the main problem was not getting more sponsors, but getting some agreement and support from the Indonesian ministry that deals with economic affairs. Anriette On 31/07/2013 15:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > observer.) > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to the > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > not booked yet. > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > price. > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > simply been declared dead. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Jul 31 12:15:57 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 18:15:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> Message-ID: At 15:02 31/07/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy >has simply been declared dead Norbert, Anriette, OpenStand does not mean commercialization but legitimate or over-corporatization (that depends on the cooperation others bring or not). - The point here is not logos/banners (this is already the on-line case: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/funding/86-donors). - The point is about the ongoing research that is needed to further the evolution of the Internet. IAB has expressed its concerns and recommendations regarding this research and evolution. This is the IAB "Research Funding Recommendations" RFC 3869. IAB RFC 3869 states: "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet [] could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet." IAB RFC 3869 also states: "The IAB believes that it would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward." 2005 WSIS Tunis Agenda has mandated the IGF to be principally a discussion forum to facilitate a multilogue among stakeholders and "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations". Reasonnable corporate influence, pressure and lobbying is legitimate. What is a fault is the lack of governments (and their international organizations) funding and civil-society non commercial voluntary work coordination. There is no fault with the corporations – RFC 6852 is complementary to RFC 3869 (but it does not explain how, what RFC 2870 [IAB Charter] calls for). There is a need for Governments to understand their digital obligations and for us to efficiently protect our digital rights. I have no problem with a plan, but I cannot deploy it alone. Several times we have started it but then we shot it down ourselves. Several times we also achieved some precautionary successes. I hope that we succeed this time. It is only a question of complementarity and determination within the bootstrap secretariat. Not of T&L expenses. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Wed Jul 31 14:29:31 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:29:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> Message-ID: Anything said withing the confines of a UN convened meeting is deemed to be immune from any form of prosecution. But that is not to rule any means a foreign government might take to silence it's critics. This has happened before On 31/07/2013, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 15:02 31/07/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >>commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy >>has simply been declared dead > > Norbert, Anriette, > > OpenStand does not mean commercialization but legitimate or > over-corporatization (that depends on the cooperation others bring or not). > > - The point here is not logos/banners (this is already the on-line > case: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/funding/86-donors). > - The point is about the ongoing research that is needed to further > the evolution of the Internet. IAB has expressed its concerns and > recommendations regarding this research and evolution. This is the > IAB "Research Funding Recommendations" RFC 3869. > > IAB RFC 3869 states: "The principal thesis of this document is that > if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future > Internet research, the future of the Internet [] could be in > trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the > funding source can also affect the content of the research, for > example, towards or against the development of open standards, or > taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed > protocols on the other traffic on the Internet." > > IAB RFC 3869 also states: "The IAB believes that it would be helpful > for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their > funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the > Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward." > > 2005 WSIS Tunis Agenda has mandated the IGF to be principally a > discussion forum to facilitate a multilogue among stakeholders and > "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations". Reasonnable corporate influence, pressure and > lobbying is legitimate. What is a fault is the lack of governments > (and their international organizations) funding and civil-society non > commercial voluntary work coordination. > > There is no fault with the corporations – RFC 6852 is complementary > to RFC 3869 (but it does not explain how, what RFC 2870 [IAB Charter] > calls for). There is a need for Governments to understand their > digital obligations and for us to efficiently protect our digital > rights. I have no problem with a plan, but I cannot deploy it alone. > Several times we have started it but then we shot it down ourselves. > Several times we also achieved some precautionary successes. > > I hope that we succeed this time. It is only a question of > complementarity and determination within the bootstrap secretariat. > Not of T&L expenses. > > jfc > > > > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Wed Jul 31 15:57:28 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 19:57:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51F92F00.4090407@apc.org> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51F92F00.4090407@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Anriette, Nnenna and Nobert for the useful updates. It is encouraging to know that even with the arising challenges, the IGF will happen. Kind RegardsGG > Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:36:32 +0200 > From: anriette at apc.org > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; nb at bollow.ch > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > Thanks for the report Norbert. > > Here are a few other notes I thought would be interesting: > > The host country agreement includes basic non-negotiables such as the > host country cannot refuse delegates entry or exit and immunity must be > guaranteed for everything that is said inside meeting rooms. The > representative from Indonesia indicated that they have not had any > concerns with the HCA, other than something about policy protection > which I could not hear that clearly. Host country agreements are > generally not concluded until late in the process, and, they don't seem > to relate to the funding of the event in any detail. > > The Indonesian organisers have raised $1 million and need about another > $900,000. This amount could look different if certain in-kind > contributions are taking into account. MAG members agreed that: > > - getting the funding is not the only concern, a clear commitment from > the Indonesians is what is most needed at this point > - the UN should be asked to be as flexible about its costs as possible > - we should pursue a dual strategy: try to have IGF in Bali, but also > pursue alternatives which Norbert outlines below. > > In addition to Norbert's confirmation that the IGF is not in direct > danger of being commercialised here is a bit more feedback on the > questions I asked about branding and sponsors: > > No logos allowed in conference space. Logos/branding allowed outside the > venue, or in the exhibition space, and on material distributed inside > IGF bags. > > In the past the UN enforced these rules, e.g. in Rio a commercial > co-organiser was asked to take banners down and in Egypt local sponsors > could put their banners outside the premises where they could be seen > but where they were not in official UN space. > > Chengetai also said that if a sponsor is providing information about > their IG activities, the promotion would be permissable. I assume this > would apply to material placed in the bags, for example. Not just any > material would be accepted. > > I did not get the impression that anything had been formally promised to > sponsors of the Bali IGF that would violate these limits. It seemed the > main problem was not getting more sponsors, but getting some agreement > and support from the Indonesian ministry that deals with economic affairs. > > Anriette > > > > On 31/07/2013 15:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > > observer.) > > > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to the > > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > > not booked yet. > > > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > > price. > > > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > > simply been declared dead. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jul 31 16:38:13 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:38:13 -1000 Subject: [governance] Commercialisation of the Bali IGF -> Anriette's questions In-Reply-To: <20130731124911.3e104919@quill> References: <20130731124911.3e104919@quill> Message-ID: Dear All, In my personal capacity as an individual, my thoughts are as follows: It is perfectly normal to have diverse sponsorship for the event whether in cash or in kind. For example, in kind could range from the following: - Visa Fee Waivers for certain representatives; - Provision of local law enforcement officers [military or police]; - Tax concessions for local corporate sponsors - Venue Hire Discounts etc - Discounts if you fly on the local National Airline etc; Whilst there is much talk about Indonesia's Government having the financial capability to donate sums of money, governments have pre-defined budgets usually committed a year in advance and so it is absolutely possible that the Government Ministry or Agency which may have bidded may have run into budget overruns, this is not unusual and also is an occurrence that happens to companies from time to time. It is possible (remember, we are not privy to discussions that happened between the Host Government and the UN nor the Agreement as it is confidential until disclosure is waived by parties concerned) that the amount that they foresaw was not anticipated at the time of planning. To put things into context, countries in the South East Asia have generally been experiencing waves of drought over the last few years, food, water and energy shortages and numerous other challenges that could impact on budget allocations and also in terms of how things are prioritised in the host country. It is important for the sake that the situation is managed in a way that allows the Government not to lose face and that creative alternative solutions are exhausted. Various expenditure items can be categorised and open for the public to sponsor such as conference logistical items. Collectively, this would help reduce the budgetary costs for such a Forum. For example, writing pads, stationery. Bandwidth costs, in terms of internet connectivity can be sponsored by local Internet Service Providers or discounted with a component subsidised by other ISPs. Sponsors should be given the opportunity to be acknowledged through special mentions and also on posters and the like. Compromise can be reached by keeping the main IGF banner without any reference to any vendor or sponsor etc. So sponsorship banners could be a separate thing or not. Exhibition fees can be waived for sponsors etc. As for the commercialisation of the discussions, I think it is safe to assume that the selection of speakers and panellists in the IGF is pretty much as Workshop Organisers see fit which are preceded by MAG selection of Workshop Proposals. I am trusting that the MAG composition in diverse representation of the community is enough to ensure that there are sufficient checks and balances. In my mind there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving air time to a major corporate sponsor during the opening and the closing. Afterall, they have invested into the outcome and it is only a fair return. Besides, we as civil society get a chance to speak anyway during the opening and closing of the IGF. Kind Regards, Sala P.S I am in Cook Islands at the moment and will be going to Niue after this and will access the Internet intermittently. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > FYI... here is copy of the “Commercialisation of the Bali IGF” related > questions that Anriette has circulated to the MAG list with a request > for them to be addressed at the MAG meeting that is to start shortly > (together with a few other questions). > > (forwarded with permission) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Commercialisation of the Bali IGF represented by the > funding/sponsorship document from the Indonesian organising committee > circulated in the last few days. > > - What is the status of this document? The copy I saw was on Google > docs, but I believe it has the same content as the one on the Host > country website marked as "revision 10b". It has since been removed. > - Is the Indonesian strategy (as represented in this document and if it > was indeed a formal document) different from previous IGF host country > sponsorship and branding strategies and does it comply with UN criteria? > Can we confirm that the organisers were aware of these criteria? > - Does the approach to sponsorship in the document risk sponsors having > influence over the IGF agenda and character? > - Was the document used and referenced in conversations with sponsors or > donors who have committed support? I.o.w. are they are any sponsors who > expect promises made in the document to be kept? > - Would not delivering on these promises put any of the money already > raised by the Indonesian organising committee at risk? > - More generally, what is permitted and what is not in terms of > branding/banners/benefits for sponsors? > - How does UNDESA and the Secretariat ensure compliance with these rules > or standards? > > --snap------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t