From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Sun Jun 30 23:13:03 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:13:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Selection Criteria: 2013-14 Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: <9DF9D126-8557-4ADA-A76F-77DBB32C60D7@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: <20130630231303.23993v0fl7b345hb@www.ciencitec.com> Tracy: As far as I have information, were a list of people which include my name, which is the action that I do, what is the role? o function?. thanks José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 30 23:57:50 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 09:27:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs In-Reply-To: <51D04C5B.5090105@cafonso.ca> 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> Message-ID: <51D0FE3E.9010001@itforchange.net> 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 >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 1 02:18:39 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 18:18:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection > through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >> > >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder > >> > >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> FYI. (Source : > https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > >>> > >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > >>> > >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >>> block access to content for people across the globe. > >>> > >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >>> vendors into the HTML standard. > >>> > >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the > >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and > >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While > >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared > >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious > >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." > >>> > >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their > >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal > >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down > >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of > >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to > >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, > >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or > >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers > >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content > >>> companies. > >>> > >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > >>> > >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it > >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff > >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for > >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers > >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy > >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that > >>> gave birth to the Web." > >>> > >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > >>> > >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: > >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > >>> > >>> Contacts: > >>> > >>> Danny O'Brien > >>> International Outreach Coordinator > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> danny at eff.org > >>> > >>> Seth Schoen > >>> Senior Staff Technologist > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> seth at eff.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 > > > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 03:39:44 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:39:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: That will be great! Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jun 1, 2013 7:19 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support > the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed > here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Members, >> >> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection >> through the crafting of the statement. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen >> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> FYI. (Source : >> https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >> >>> >> >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >> >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >> >>> >> >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >> >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >> >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >> >>> block access to content for people across the globe. >> >>> >> >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >> >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >> >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >> >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >> >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >> >>> vendors into the HTML standard. >> >>> >> >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >> >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >> >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >> >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >> >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >> >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >> >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >> >>> >> >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >> >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >> >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >> >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >> >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >> >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >> >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >> >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >> >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >> >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >> >>> companies. >> >>> >> >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >> >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >> >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >> >>> >> >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >> >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >> >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >> >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >> >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >> >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >> >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >> >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >> >>> gave birth to the Web." >> >>> >> >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >> >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >> >>> >> >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >> >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >> >>> >> >>> Contacts: >> >>> >> >>> Danny O'Brien >> >>> International Outreach Coordinator >> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >>> danny at eff.org >> >>> >> >>> Seth Schoen >> >>> Senior Staff Technologist >> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >>> seth at eff.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 >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Tapani Tarvainen >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 1 03:50:58 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:50:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> Message-ID: +1 to John's opinion on ......."ICANN having solid multiple-government AoC-based oversight,"........... Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jun 1, 2013 4:55 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > On May 28, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > - the Affirmation of Commitments reviews, including the Accountability > and Transparency Review Team I am currently on, are a soft oversight > mechanism. And I think a rather clever one at that - though I am > presumptuous enough to beleive most people don't understand how really > clever it is.. I don't think that even ICANN fully understands or accepts > it yet, (see how presumptuous an idiot savant can be?) I think once it is > fully developed (we are only in the second iteration) and ICANN learns to > accept it as oversight, I think a certain level of maturity will have been > demonstrated. > > Avri - Excellent observation. > > Having strong and successful Affirmation of Commitments processes > (including > multiple government participation) is very likely a key prerequisite > before any > possible change to the unique USG oversight role for ICANN... In > particular, > one has to be confident that any future ICANN that might "go off the > rails" can > (through its own mechanisms such as reconsideration and external > mechanisms such > as the AoC) be brought back to proper performance of its coordination role > on > behalf of the global Internet community. > > A question to the USG (regarding ending the USG's unique role) is only > germane > when the precondition is met of ICANN having solid multiple-government > AoC-based > oversight, otherwise it is likely to be far too hypothetical for any > meaningful > response. > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Partaking of raw or underdeveloped > organizations > may increase one's risk of a systemic disorder. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 06:18:43 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:18:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> Message-ID: Precisely, in this line of thought, is it desirable then to work towards an AoC type of agreement between ICANN and GAC members, ultimately? Which AoC will then supersede the current one with a single government. There was a time an international framework convention was advocated by a well respected US academic institution, now we understand it is out of date (and we know now Internet is averse to international treaties.) Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? Because otherwise, GAC just looks like an informal collection of governments taking sometimes the freedom to push for a position that would be illegal even in their own country (making ICANN into an informal market for government policy, notwithstanding whatever is in the ICANN Bylaws about GAC). I shall add if such multilateral AoC were to be the way, when comes the time, I'd expect the drafting/negotiation phase to go through iterations for multistakeholder and internet community inputs. Mawaki On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > +1 to John's opinion on ......."ICANN having solid multiple-government > AoC-based oversight,"........... > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > On Jun 1, 2013 4:55 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > >> On May 28, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> > - the Affirmation of Commitments reviews, including the Accountability >> and Transparency Review Team I am currently on, are a soft oversight >> mechanism. And I think a rather clever one at that - though I am >> presumptuous enough to beleive most people don't understand how really >> clever it is.. I don't think that even ICANN fully understands or accepts >> it yet, (see how presumptuous an idiot savant can be?) I think once it is >> fully developed (we are only in the second iteration) and ICANN learns to >> accept it as oversight, I think a certain level of maturity will have been >> demonstrated. >> >> Avri - Excellent observation. >> >> Having strong and successful Affirmation of Commitments processes >> (including >> multiple government participation) is very likely a key prerequisite >> before any >> possible change to the unique USG oversight role for ICANN... In >> particular, >> one has to be confident that any future ICANN that might "go off the >> rails" can >> (through its own mechanisms such as reconsideration and external >> mechanisms such >> as the AoC) be brought back to proper performance of its coordination >> role on >> behalf of the global Internet community. >> >> A question to the USG (regarding ending the USG's unique role) is only >> germane >> when the precondition is met of ICANN having solid multiple-government >> AoC-based >> oversight, otherwise it is likely to be far too hypothetical for any >> meaningful >> response. >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> Disclaimers: My views alone. Partaking of raw or underdeveloped >> organizations >> may increase one's risk of a systemic disorder. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Jun 1 09:46:59 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:46:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> Message-ID: <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> Hi Mawaki On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. Cheers Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jun 1 11:35:30 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:35:30 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331B2E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I agree with Bill, what ICANN has to do as the next step to clarify the procedures for the communication, coordination and collaboration in an enhanced PDP amont ALL stakewholders involved in ICANN, INCLUDING the GAC. This could be in a form of an AoC (or a FoC). BTW, a good issue both for the Durban workshop as well as for ATLAS II. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Sa 01.06.2013 15:46 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mawaki Chango Cc: Avri Doria; John Curran Betreff: Re: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) Hi Mawaki On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. Cheers Bill -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 11:41:46 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:41:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331B2E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331B2E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Agree with Wolfgang +1 On Saturday, 1 June 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > I agree with Bill, what ICANN has to do as the next step to clarify the > procedures for the communication, coordination and collaboration in an > enhanced PDP amont ALL stakewholders involved in ICANN, INCLUDING the GAC. > This could be in a form of an AoC (or a FoC). > > BTW, a good issue both for the Durban workshop as well as for ATLAS II. > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von > William Drake > Gesendet: Sa 01.06.2013 15:46 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Mawaki Chango > Cc: Avri Doria; John Curran > Betreff: Re: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET > NEUTRALITY AND MORE) > > > Hi Mawaki > > On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango > > wrote: > > > Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? > > > I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as > greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a > subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. > > Cheers > > Bill > > -- 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 kichango at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 12:42:48 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:42:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, My question, and tentative answer, was predicated on the notion that there is no issue with the role of the other stakeholders within ICANN (see constituency structures), but only with governments. But maybe you're right suggesting that the whole framework be redefined for all stakeholders at once. In which case, this will have to be a more complex exercise which will require that the whole thorn that is "respective roles and responsibilities" be removed or all aspects resolved once for all. The solution you're proposing suggests to me two opposing lines of argument: 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body to which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions. 2. Governments have a particular role to play: the very purpose of the GAC assumes that as well as the current role of USG/DoC since its position for ICANN oversight is held by USG alone not a multistakeholder body (i.e. USG surrounding itself with a sample of other stakeholders to collectively carry out the oversight function.) Therefore the next step would just be about extending that unique governmental mission so far in the hands of a single government to a body representing the governments of the world. To which 'position 1' may respond: Well, no! That arrangement may have been necessary at the early stage of ICANN experiment till certain maturity. Now we have reached that time where we need to move forward with an affirmative and autonomous multistakeholder structure, etc. And that's where all the ingenuity of the actors involved will be needed to get to a consensus or at least an agreement. Best, Mawaki On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Mawaki > > On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? > > > I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as > greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a > subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. > > Cheers > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Jun 1 14:07:26 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 14:07:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, While I am one of those who support sending a note is support. I recommend hesitation in saying we have consensus until such time as there is a proper consensus call on the yet to be written note. Even 24 hours would probably be sufficient. At this point, i think we have seen support for the sending an as of yet unwritten note, but there unless i missed it while traveling I am not aware of a consensus call on a note. Forgive me for being picky about coordinator business that is probably none of my business. avri On 1 Jun 2013, at 02:18, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >> > >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder > >> > >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > >>> > >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > >>> > >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >>> block access to content for people across the globe. > >>> > >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >>> vendors into the HTML standard. > >>> > >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the > >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and > >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While > >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared > >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious > >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." > >>> > >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their > >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal > >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down > >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of > >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to > >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, > >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or > >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers > >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content > >>> companies. > >>> > >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > >>> > >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it > >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff > >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for > >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers > >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy > >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that > >>> gave birth to the Web." > >>> > >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > >>> > >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: > >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > >>> > >>> Contacts: > >>> > >>> Danny O'Brien > >>> International Outreach Coordinator > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> danny at eff.org > >>> > >>> Seth Schoen > >>> Senior Staff Technologist > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> seth at eff.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 > > > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Jun 1 14:13:54 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 14:13:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> Message-ID: Hi, As far as I know, the chair of the GAC is one of 2 people responsible for picking the membership on all AOC review teams. And counting experts and ex-officio, who are the same as members in all respects except for the appointment process, 7 out of 16 fully participating members of the ATRT2 are Government - only 1 from the US. avri On 1 Jun 2013, at 06:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Precisely, in this line of thought, is it desirable then to work towards an AoC type of agreement between ICANN and GAC members, ultimately? Which AoC will then supersede the current one with a single government. > > There was a time an international framework convention was advocated by a well respected US academic institution, now we understand it is out of date (and we know now Internet is averse to international treaties.) Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? Because otherwise, GAC just looks like an informal collection of governments taking sometimes the freedom to push for a position that would be illegal even in their own country (making ICANN into an informal market for government policy, notwithstanding whatever is in the ICANN Bylaws about GAC). > > I shall add if such multilateral AoC were to be the way, when comes the time, I'd expect the drafting/negotiation phase to go through iterations for multistakeholder and internet community inputs. > > Mawaki > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > +1 to John's opinion on ......."ICANN having solid multiple-government AoC-based oversight,"........... > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > > On Jun 1, 2013 4:55 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > On May 28, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > - the Affirmation of Commitments reviews, including the Accountability and Transparency Review Team I am currently on, are a soft oversight mechanism. And I think a rather clever one at that - though I am presumptuous enough to beleive most people don't understand how really clever it is.. I don't think that even ICANN fully understands or accepts it yet, (see how presumptuous an idiot savant can be?) I think once it is fully developed (we are only in the second iteration) and ICANN learns to accept it as oversight, I think a certain level of maturity will have been demonstrated. > > Avri - Excellent observation. > > Having strong and successful Affirmation of Commitments processes (including > multiple government participation) is very likely a key prerequisite before any > possible change to the unique USG oversight role for ICANN... In particular, > one has to be confident that any future ICANN that might "go off the rails" can > (through its own mechanisms such as reconsideration and external mechanisms such > as the AoC) be brought back to proper performance of its coordination role on > behalf of the global Internet community. > > A question to the USG (regarding ending the USG's unique role) is only germane > when the precondition is met of ICANN having solid multiple-government AoC-based > oversight, otherwise it is likely to be far too hypothetical for any meaningful > response. > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Partaking of raw or underdeveloped organizations > may increase one's risk of a systemic disorder. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 15:32:40 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:32:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> The idea is to initiate a draft text and invite comment and if there is support for the text and consensus, then we can issue the text. So far, there has been nothing but agreement for the IGC to issue a statement to the EFF. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 2, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > While I am one of those who support sending a note is support. > > I recommend hesitation in saying we have consensus until such time as there is a proper consensus call on the yet to be written note. Even 24 hours would probably be sufficient. > > At this point, i think we have seen support for the sending an as of yet unwritten note, but there unless i missed it while traveling I am not aware of a consensus call on a note. > > Forgive me for being picky about coordinator business that is probably none of my business. > > avri > > > On 1 Jun 2013, at 02:18, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Dear Members, >> >> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder >>>> >>>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>>>> >>>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>>>> >>>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>>>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>>>> >>>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>>>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>>>> >>>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>>>> >>>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>>>> companies. >>>>> >>>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>>>> >>>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>>>> gave birth to the Web." >>>>> >>>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>>>> >>>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>>>> >>>>> Contacts: >>>>> >>>>> Danny O'Brien >>>>> International Outreach Coordinator >>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> danny at eff.org >>>>> >>>>> Seth Schoen >>>>> Senior Staff Technologist >>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> seth at eff.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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Jun 1 17:16:23 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 17:16:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, sounds good. Perhaps my caution comes from my understanding of how consensus calling works. I think of it as a process approximately like - there is document - we talk a bunch, on list, in person, on chats, in drive, at bars ... wherever - after a while the coordinators put out a stmt saying they think there is consensus - it there is nothing but agreement, you got it. - if there is someone, like me in this case, saying " ummm. i don't think we have consensus because ..." then we talk a bunch more we edit a bit here and a bit there. - the coordinators guess again - and it repeats. o now if after a while everybody except me thinks there is consensus, then you tell me that you "understand my PoV and sorry, you are alone on this one, so shut up "(using whatever euphemism makes people feel like etiquette prevails.) And if no one comes to my rescue saying, "oh no we agree with her," you've got it, roughly. or something like that. Certainly can go quite quickly on a letter everybody seems to agree on. So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I just have to say something if I don't think we have it. cheers, avri On 1 Jun 2013, at 15:32, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > The idea is to initiate a draft text and invite comment and if there is support for the text and consensus, then we can issue the text. > > So far, there has been nothing but agreement for the IGC to issue a statement to the EFF. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 2, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While I am one of those who support sending a note is support. >> >> I recommend hesitation in saying we have consensus until such time as there is a proper consensus call on the yet to be written note. Even 24 hours would probably be sufficient. >> >> At this point, i think we have seen support for the sending an as of yet unwritten note, but there unless i missed it while traveling I am not aware of a consensus call on a note. >> >> Forgive me for being picky about coordinator business that is probably none of my business. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 1 Jun 2013, at 02:18, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear Members, >>> >>> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Sala >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>>>>> >>>>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>>>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>>>>> >>>>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>>>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>>>>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>>>>> >>>>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>>>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>>>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>>>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>>>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>>>>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>>>>> >>>>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>>>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>>>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>>>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>>>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>>>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>>>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>>>>> >>>>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>>>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>>>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>>>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>>>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>>>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>>>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>>>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>>>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>>>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>>>>> companies. >>>>>> >>>>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>>>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>>>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>>>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>>>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>>>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>>>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>>>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>>>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>>>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>>>>> gave birth to the Web." >>>>>> >>>>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>>>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>>>>> >>>>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>>>>> >>>>>> Contacts: >>>>>> >>>>>> Danny O'Brien >>>>>> International Outreach Coordinator >>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>> danny at eff.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Seth Schoen >>>>>> Senior Staff Technologist >>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>> seth at eff.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 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Sat Jun 1 17:38:57 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:38:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Same happens in Peru In-Reply-To: References: <72F06E48-A613-4445-9EA0-830CD7E7A3F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130601173857.729071ev7xulvoc1@www.ciencitec.com> The same happens in Peru, ISOC only exists for five individuals who have appropriate and not summon renewal charges. They are aware of this?, Gentlemen. Managers of ISOC, there can be individuals who take ownership of Organizations. Enough. thanks José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Kabani escribió: > Naveed, > > Many thanks for updates on the subject. > > Sala, this is the present situation of ISOC in Pakistan > > Thanks & regards > > > > On Wednesday, 29 May 2013, Naveed haq wrote: > >> Dear Sala, >> >> >> >> At present, there is no ISOC Pakistan. >> >> Please be informed that the Internet Society Pakistan Chapter went >> under a community driven rejuvenation process started in mid-2011. >> ****** >> >> Presently, the community members are in process of forming city >> based chapter(s) in Pakistan. One of the community efforts to form >> >> Internet Society Pakistan Islamabad chapter is in final steps of >> chartership. >> >> However, several global / individual members of the Internet >> Society from Pakistan are actively involved with the IGC. >> >> >> >> Best regards,**** >> >> Naveed Haq >> >> Chapter Development Manager, Asia-Pacific >> >> Internet Society >> >> > From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > 'salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com');> >> > Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:50:27 +1200 >> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> >> > Subject: [governance] ISOC Pakistan [URGENT] >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Could members of ISOC Pakistan or affiliates of ISOC Pakistan who are >> within the IGC please contact me offlist? >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > Sala >> > >> > Sent from my iPad >> > > > -- > Sent from 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Jun 1 19:52:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 05:22:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Avri that the co cos should formally seek consensus and invite objections of any within a defined period, before proceeding to declare consensus. --srs (iPad) On 02-Jun-2013, at 2:46, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > sounds good. > > Perhaps my caution comes from my understanding of how consensus calling works. > > I think of it as a process approximately like > > - there is document > - we talk a bunch, on list, in person, on chats, in drive, at bars ... wherever > - after a while the coordinators put out a stmt saying they think there is consensus > - it there is nothing but agreement, you got it. > - if there is someone, like me in this case, saying " ummm. i don't think we have consensus because ..." then we talk a bunch more we edit a bit here and a bit there. > - the coordinators guess again > - and it repeats. > o now if after a while everybody except me thinks there is consensus, then you tell me that you "understand my PoV and sorry, you are alone on this one, so shut up "(using whatever euphemism makes people feel like etiquette prevails.) And if no one comes to my rescue saying, "oh no we agree with her," you've got it, roughly. > > or something like that. > > Certainly can go quite quickly on a letter everybody seems to agree on. > > So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I just have to say something if I don't think we have it. > > cheers, > > avri > > > On 1 Jun 2013, at 15:32, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> The idea is to initiate a draft text and invite comment and if there is support for the text and consensus, then we can issue the text. >> >> So far, there has been nothing but agreement for the IGC to issue a statement to the EFF. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 2, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I am one of those who support sending a note is support. >>> >>> I recommend hesitation in saying we have consensus until such time as there is a proper consensus call on the yet to be written note. Even 24 hours would probably be sufficient. >>> >>> At this point, i think we have seen support for the sending an as of yet unwritten note, but there unless i missed it while traveling I am not aware of a consensus call on a note. >>> >>> Forgive me for being picky about coordinator business that is probably none of my business. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 1 Jun 2013, at 02:18, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> Dear Members, >>>> >>>> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>>>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>>>>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>>>>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>>>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>>>>>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>>>>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>>>>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>>>>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>>>>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>>>>>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>>>>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>>>>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>>>>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>>>>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>>>>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>>>>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>>>>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>>>>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>>>>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>>>>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>>>>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>>>>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>>>>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>>>>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>>>>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>>>>>> companies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>>>>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>>>>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>>>>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>>>>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>>>>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>>>>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>>>>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>>>>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>>>>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>>>>>> gave birth to the Web." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contacts: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Danny O'Brien >>>>>>> International Outreach Coordinator >>>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>>> danny at eff.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Seth Schoen >>>>>>> Senior Staff Technologist >>>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>>> seth at eff.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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jun 2 04:27:00 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:27:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> Message-ID: <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> On 02/06/2013, at 5:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I just have to say something if I don't think we have it. I've always found the poll useful in determining the extent of consensus. We have our own polling software set up and linked to the membership database, and it takes about 10 minutes to set up a poll and for the results to start rolling in. I suggest more use should be made of it before calling consensus. PS. I am in favour of supporting EFF's objection. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 2 04:38:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 14:08:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <13f0409efa2.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Consensus proposals should then by default come with a poll link Thanks for providing it --srs (htc one x) On 2 June 2013 1:57:00 PM Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/06/2013, at 5:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I > just have to say something if I don't think we have it. > > > I've always found the poll useful in determining the extent of consensus. > We have our own polling software set up and linked to the membership > database, and it takes about 10 minutes to set up a poll and for the > results to start rolling in. I suggest more use should be made of it > before calling consensus. > > PS. I am in favour of supporting EFF's objection. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 05:18:16 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 04:18:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <13f0409efa2.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> <13f0409efa2.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Supporting EFF's letter. Antonio Medina Gómez Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2013/6/2 Suresh Ramasubramanian > Consensus proposals should then by default come with a poll link > > Thanks for providing it > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 2 June 2013 1:57:00 PM Jeremy Malcolm ** wrote: > > On 02/06/2013, at 5:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I > just have to say something if I don't think we have it. > > > I've always found the poll useful in determining the extent of consensus. > We have our own polling software set up and linked to the membership > database, and it takes about 10 minutes to set up a poll and for the > results to start rolling in. I suggest more use should be made of it > before calling consensus. > > PS. I am in favour of supporting EFF's objection. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Jun 2 08:23:41 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 08:23:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi, I sometimes think polls are necessary, but then we are almost into voting. The other problem with polls is that they don't ask for a reason for being against the attempted consensus. But they can be a useful tool on occasion for determining the difference between no support, some support and a lot of support. Also: Maybe for these sort of things we need a simple form letter. -- Para 1 - we are the IGC and the IGC is this. Do we have this from the last statement? Para 2 - After following IGC process, the IGC has reached consensus in support of (identification of thing being supported) Para 3. - We encourage others to review and support the [proposal/recommendation/appeal/petition] found at (url of thing being supported.) Sincerely Co-ordinators of IGC -- And if we all reached consensus for the same reason we can include: para. 2.5 we support this because (consensus reasons go here) But this is a hard para. to write and get agreement on in a group as diverse as this is. One of the primary (strengths, weaknesses) of the IGC is its diversity. When we can get off our differences long enough to find the commonalities, our statements have significance. - people know that we have a lots of [stuff] to overcome in coming to consensus, and when a group this diverse reaches consensus, that is something. avri On 2 Jun 2013, at 04:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/06/2013, at 5:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I just have to say something if I don't think we have it. > > I've always found the poll useful in determining the extent of consensus. We have our own polling software set up and linked to the membership database, and it takes about 10 minutes to set up a poll and for the results to start rolling in. I suggest more use should be made of it before calling consensus. > > PS. I am in favour of supporting EFF's objection. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 08:26:42 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 00:26:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 Message-ID: Dear All, Noting that there is consensus for IGC to draft a Statement to support EFF's Objection, kindly find the Draft Text enclosed for your comments and feedback. Please add your thoughts. We would like to invite our members to comment on the text. We have not initiated a call for consensus on this Draft as we are inviting input and feedback on the draft. I have been having trouble posting it on the IGC Statement space and once this is resolved, will post it there which will allow for a systematic way for members to comment on various paragraphs and also suggest text. *Objection to the Inclusion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) in HTML5* The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The impact of the standard if allowed to be developed will cause serious violations of various human rights including but not limited to property rights. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. We note that much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In regions, where access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, an open and free internet allows for ease of sharing information which empowers communities. We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We would also like to reiterate that we fully endorse the arguments raised within the objection [1] raised by the EFF. [1] https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 2 08:34:12 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 00:34:12 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Apologies for the typos - edits have been highlighted below] On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that there is consensus for IGC to draft a Statement to support > EFF's Objection, kindly find the Draft Text enclosed for your comments and > feedback. Please add your thoughts. We would like to invite our members to > comment on the text. > > We have not initiated a call for consensus on this Draft as we are > inviting input and feedback on the draft. I have been having trouble > posting it on the IGC Statement space and once this is resolved, will post > it there which will allow for a systematic way for members to comment on > various paragraphs and also suggest text. > > > *Objection to the Inclusion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) in HTML5* > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across > the planet. > > We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an > open and free internet. The impact of the standard if allowed to be > developed will cause serious violations of various human rights including > but not limited to property rights. The inherent danger of the proposal > would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy > interoperability and lock in legacy business models. > > > We note that much of the developing world, relies on open source > developers to enable mechanisms that allow for an open environment of > sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and > diverse content. In regions, where access to information is a challenge and > with serious resource constraints, an open and free internet allows for > ease of sharing information which empowers communities. > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will > kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights > management (DRM) in HTML5. > > We would also like to reiterate that we fully endorse the arguments raised > within the objection [1] raised by the EFF. > > > > [1] https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jun 2 08:50:25 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 20:50:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DD5AB72-1E9E-4C01-A583-4ED85F1A7171@ciroap.org> On 02/06/2013, at 8:26 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > The impact of the standard if allowed to be developed will cause serious violations of various human rights including but not limited to property rights. > I suggest getting rid of this sentence, which is a bit wooly and hyperbolic. > We note that much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In regions, where access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, an open and free internet allows for ease of sharing information which empowers communities. > This para is good, though. > We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We would also like to reiterate that we fully endorse the arguments raised within the objection [1] raised by the EFF. > I have some problems with this para too and would suggest it be simplified to something like "For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard." Short and sweet. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Jun 2 08:50:24 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 08:50:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or hinder it, but neither side can kill it. I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to Knowledge. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Jun 2 09:18:24 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 15:18:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <66CB1051-4D97-4388-9AD1-D8A4C005290D@uzh.ch> Hi Mawaki On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi Bill, > > My question, and tentative answer, was predicated on the notion that there is no issue with the role of the other stakeholders within ICANN (see constituency structures), One could argue that equitable accountability to the full range of nongovernmental stakeholders still needs, um, a wee bit of work :-( > but only with governments. But maybe you're right suggesting that the whole framework be redefined for all stakeholders at once. In which case, this will have to be a more complex exercise which will require that the whole thorn that is "respective roles and responsibilities" be removed or all aspects resolved once for all. While R3 has proven to be as open to abuse as expected, with regard to institutional design of a global AoC it'd presumably require some local clarification and codification. > > The solution you're proposing suggests to me two opposing lines of argument: > > 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body to which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions. > > 2. Governments have a particular role to play: the very purpose of the GAC assumes that as well as the current role of USG/DoC since its position for ICANN oversight is held by USG alone not a multistakeholder body (i.e. USG surrounding itself with a sample of other stakeholders to collectively carry out the oversight function.) Therefore the next step would just be about extending that unique governmental mission so far in the hands of a single government to a body representing the governments of the world. Hmm…I wonder how hard this binary has to be. How about if they play a particular but in most dimensions equal role? > > To which 'position 1' may respond: Well, no! That arrangement may have been necessary at the early stage of ICANN experiment till certain maturity. Now we have reached that time where we need to move forward with an affirmative and autonomous multistakeholder structure, etc. And that's where all the ingenuity of the actors involved will be needed to get to a consensus or at least an agreement. No question, ingenuity will be needed. Cheers, Bill > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Mawaki > > On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? > > I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. > > Cheers > > 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 ********************************************************** 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 09:22:48 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 09:22:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. > > I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. > > - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) > > - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. of course not, it's overblown hyperbole. 'Stymie" or "hinder" are better words, or just drop the para per Jeremy. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Jun 2 11:56:02 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:56:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> Message-ID: <51AB6B12.1040508@cafonso.ca> Jeremy suggested a replacement, not simply dropping it. He suggested dropping another para. I agree with him. --c.a. On 06/02/2013 10:22 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> >> >> Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. >> >> I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. >> >> - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) >> >> - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > > > of course not, it's overblown hyperbole. 'Stymie" or "hinder" are > better words, or just drop the para per Jeremy. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From babatope at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 12:12:57 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:12:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51AB6B12.1040508@cafonso.ca> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <51AB6B12.1040508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1829874478-1370188928-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-822519618-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> I thınk stymıe or hınder ınnovatıon ıs more apt and measurable Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:56:02 To: ; McTim Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 Jeremy suggested a replacement, not simply dropping it. He suggested dropping another para. I agree with him. --c.a. On 06/02/2013 10:22 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> >> >> Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. >> >> I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. >> >> - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) >> >> - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > > > of course not, it's overblown hyperbole. 'Stymie" or "hinder" are > better words, or just drop the para per Jeremy. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From babatope at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 12:14:50 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:14:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1829874478-1370188928-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-copy_sent_folder-1392888353-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <51AB6B12.1040508@cafonso.ca> <1829874478-1370188928-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-copy_sent_folder-1392888353-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <293876162-1370189040-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-752869823-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> Or we can say ıt has the abılıty to hınder access to knowledge for online users Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: babatope at gmail.com Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:12:57 To: ; Carlos A. Afonso; McTim Reply-To: babatope at gmail.com Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 I thınk stymıe or hınder ınnovatıon ıs more apt and measurable Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:56:02 To: ; McTim Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 Jeremy suggested a replacement, not simply dropping it. He suggested dropping another para. I agree with him. --c.a. On 06/02/2013 10:22 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> >> >> Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. >> >> I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. >> >> - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) >> >> - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > > > of course not, it's overblown hyperbole. 'Stymie" or "hinder" are > better words, or just drop the para per Jeremy. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 2 12:08:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:38:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> Message-ID: <13f05a5d366.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I support avri's argument. Openness, vendor neutrality etc rather than vague and fuzzy terms --srs (htc one x) On 2 June 2013 6:20:24 PM Avri Doria wrote: > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will > kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights > management (DRM) in HTML5. > > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the > others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. > > I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone > invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. > > - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one > would innovate at all (i disagree btw) > > - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and > build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation > more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or > hinder it, but neither side can kill it. > > I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we should > do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to Knowledge. > > 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 kichango at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 12:13:53 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:13:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <66CB1051-4D97-4388-9AD1-D8A4C005290D@uzh.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <66CB1051-4D97-4388-9AD1-D8A4C005290D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:18 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Mawaki > > ... > > 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body to > which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a > multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal > footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more > like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I > can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly > distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions. > > 2. Governments have a particular role to play: the very purpose of the GAC > assumes that as well as the current role of USG/DoC since its position for > ICANN oversight is held by USG alone not a multistakeholder body (i.e. USG > surrounding itself with a sample of other stakeholders to collectively > carry out the oversight function.) Therefore the next step would just be > about extending that unique governmental mission so far in the hands of a > single government to a body representing the governments of the world. > > > Hmm…I wonder how hard this binary has to be. How about if they play a > particular but in most dimensions equal role? > I guess the devil remains, as always, in the detail and ingenuity will be needed right from here on in order to craft the appropriate language that would satisfy all stakeholders, which will provide that, while they may get to have specific and different roles, those are "in most dimensions equal." For now we can only look forward to that moment of "reformation" (or rather, what is called in French "refondation") of global internet governance institution. Best, Mawaki p.s. just for the record, a clarification to my last sentence at point 1 in the previous message --should read as follows: I can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly distribute representation not only across stakeholder groups but also across regions within each stakeholder group. > > To which 'position 1' may respond: Well, no! That arrangement may have > been necessary at the early stage of ICANN experiment till certain > maturity. Now we have reached that time where we need to move forward with > an affirmative and autonomous multistakeholder structure, etc. And that's > where all the ingenuity of the actors involved will be needed to get to a > consensus or at least an agreement. > > > No question, ingenuity will be needed. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Mawaki >> >> On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? >> >> >> I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as >> greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a >> subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. >> >> Cheers >> >> 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 > > > ********************************************************** > 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 aidanoblia at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 12:21:22 2013 From: aidanoblia at gmail.com (Aida Noblia) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:21:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <13f05a5d366.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <13f05a5d366.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Dear: Like most of the reviews seem to agree on the essentials of the draft letter of Salanieta, except a few paragraphs, I tried to look at the following what has been raised so far in the list. Apologize if it is not in line with what I set, only with the spirit of cooperation. Downstairs if I add them useful. Regards Aida Noblia ------------- The Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We believe that the proposed standard by the W3C is a serious threat to a free and open Internet. We endorse and support the formal objection filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We understand the impact of the implementation of the proposed standard of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C affect various human rights seriously, slow web innovation and block access to content for people around the globe. Another inherent danger of the proposal is to exclude open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in existing business models. We note that most of the developing world is based on open source developers so that the mechanisms that allow an open environment to share resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In regions where access to information is a challenge and serious resource constraints a free and open internet allows ease of information exchange that allows communities. For these reasons we strongly oppose the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 and fully support the arguments raised in the objection [1] proposed by the EFF. ---------------------------- 2013/6/2 Suresh Ramasubramanian > I support avri's argument. Openness, vendor neutrality etc rather than > vague and fuzzy terms > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > On 2 June 2013 6:20:24 PM Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> > >> Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of >> the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic >> for me. >> >> I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone >> invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. >> >> - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one >> would innovate at all (i disagree btw) >> >> - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from >> and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes >> innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I >> don't think so. >> People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or >> hinder it, but neither side can kill it. >> >> I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we >> should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to >> Knowledge. >> >> 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 > > -- Aida Noblia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jun 2 14:48:58 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 18:48:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> References: ,<1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> * How about: "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will CONSTRAIN WEB innovation. We strongly object to inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5, AND INSIST DRM INDUSTRY INTERESTS NOT DISTORT CORE PROTOCOLS OF THE OPEN INTERNET." ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 8:50 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or hinder it, but neither side can kill it. I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to Knowledge. 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 avri at acm.org Sun Jun 2 16:04:33 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:04:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <91BF4E1C-F788-49A7-867A-0A879F943AF6@acm.org> +1 On 2 Jun 2013, at 14:48, Lee W McKnight wrote: > • How about: "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will CONSTRAIN WEB innovation. We strongly object to inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5, AND INSIST DRM INDUSTRY INTERESTS NOT DISTORT CORE PROTOCOLS OF THE OPEN INTERNET." > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 8:50 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 > > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. > > I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. > > - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) > > - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > > People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or hinder it, but neither side can kill it. > > I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to Knowledge. > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aidanoblia at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 16:48:52 2013 From: aidanoblia at gmail.com (Aida Noblia) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 17:48:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <91BF4E1C-F788-49A7-867A-0A879F943AF6@acm.org> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <91BF4E1C-F788-49A7-867A-0A879F943AF6@acm.org> Message-ID: Ok in accordance 2013/6/2 Avri Doria > +1 > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 14:48, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > • How about: "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights > management in HTML5 will CONSTRAIN WEB innovation. We strongly object to > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5, AND INSIST DRM > INDUSTRY INTERESTS NOT DISTORT CORE PROTOCOLS OF THE OPEN INTERNET." > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [ > avri at acm.org] > > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 8:50 AM > > To: IGC > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should > the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 > > > > > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital > rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> > >> > > > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of > the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic > for me. > > > > I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone > invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. > > > > - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no > one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) > > > > - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from > and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes > innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I > don't think so. > > > > People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate > or hinder it, but neither side can kill it. > > > > I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we > should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to > Knowledge. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Aida Noblia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 23:18:16 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:48:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My 2c Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. -C On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that there is consensus for IGC to draft a Statement to support > EFF's Objection, kindly find the Draft Text enclosed for your comments and > feedback. Please add your thoughts. We would like to invite our members to > comment on the text. > > We have not initiated a call for consensus on this Draft as we are > inviting input and feedback on the draft. I have been having trouble > posting it on the IGC Statement space and once this is resolved, will post > it there which will allow for a systematic way for members to comment on > various paragraphs and also suggest text. > > > *Objection to the Inclusion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) in HTML5* > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across > the planet. > > We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an > open and free internet. The impact of the standard if allowed to be > developed will cause serious violations of various human rights including > but not limited to property rights. The inherent danger of the proposal > would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy > interoperability and lock in legacy business models. > > > We note that much of the developing world relies on open source developers > to enable mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing > resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse > content. In regions, where access to information is a challenge and with > serious resource constraints, an open and free internet allows for ease of > sharing information which empowers communities. > > We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the inclusion > of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We would also like to > reiterate that we fully endorse the arguments raised within the objection > [1] raised by the EFF. > > > > [1] https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jun 3 02:13:10 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 02:13:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi Bill, > > My question, and tentative answer, was predicated on the notion that there is no issue with the role of the other stakeholders within ICANN (see constituency structures), but only with governments. But maybe you're right suggesting that the whole framework be redefined for all stakeholders at once. In which case, this will have to be a more complex exercise which will require that the whole thorn that is "respective roles and responsibilities" be removed or all aspects resolved once for all. Something to consider is whether there is a one to one relationship between organizations and their roles, or whether an organization may have multiple "respective roles"... I explore this question with respect the "role of government" below. > The solution you're proposing suggests to me two opposing lines of argument: > > 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body to which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions. Wow... lots of assumptions embedded in the above solution. In the Affirmation of Commitments (at least as I understand it), ICANN is committing to a particular government (USG) to uphold certain important principles and organize periodic reviews of its commitments. Governments seeking similar commitments from ICANN could probably get a similar Affirmation of Commitment and participate in those periodically reviews (I presume - I am neither a government nor have I asked ICANN to enter into such an AoC... ;-) I note that you use the phrase "the authoritative body"; this implies a central body as opposed to ICANN making these commitments to directly to all governments that require such and wish to participate in the reviews via entry into an AoC agreement. If ICANN is willing to commit to these principles, and be held by governments accountable to them, I'm having trouble understanding why there is some additional "body" involved in your solution. The oversight role for governments via the AoC is only one role available; it does not address the role of governments in the policy development process. It is quite possible that participating in policy development is a different role, but still one available to governments that wish more than just participating via the oversight role provided in the Affirmation of Commitments. For example, with respect to number resource policy under ICANN, governments are free to propose policy and comment on policy proposals underway in the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) development processes just as any other participant. The "policy development" role is available to all, and some governments do also participate at this level of the policy formation process. It is also possible that government participation through the GAC is yet a third role, since it is not provided for the normal course of policy development, but (per the ICANN Bylaws) to "consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues." This appears to be a liaison role, whereby governments have an opportunity to apprise ICANN of how its activities and policies may intersect laws and agreements. Telling ICANN that a policy has an interaction with a given law or agreement is important, but is not the same as actual participation during the course of policy development and should not be lightly co-mingled. In truth, the question may not be "what is the role of government," but more likely "what are the available _roles_ for government" to play with respect to coordination of critical Internet resources. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Not being a government, I do not intend to enter into an AoC agreement with ICANN, but as a citizen of the Internet I still intend to hold them accountable to the principles therein (at least via the court of public opinion... ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 3 03:42:02 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:42:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 08:48:16 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes >Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health >and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a >challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and >free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing >information) that empowers communities Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the Open Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work freely? -- 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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 04:38:55 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:08:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Roland, as at the end of the first para, "The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models." -C On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com >, at 08:48:16 > on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes > > Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >> communities >> > > Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the Open > Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work freely? > -- > 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 3 04:58:30 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:58:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51AC5AB6.8030007@apc.org> I can live with 'constrain innovation' but I do think it is important to refer to DRM's impact on innovation resulting from restrictions on easy sharing and reuse of content. Anriette On 02/06/2013 20:48, Lee W McKnight wrote: > * How about: "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will CONSTRAIN WEB innovation. We strongly object to inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5, AND INSIST DRM INDUSTRY INTERESTS NOT DISTORT CORE PROTOCOLS OF THE OPEN INTERNET." > > ________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 8:50 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 > > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. > > I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. > > - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) > > - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > > People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or hinder it, but neither side can kill it. > > I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to Knowledge. > > 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Jun 3 05:27:33 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:27:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications Message-ID: <51AC6185.90104@apc.org> Dear all I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in Durban South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on on this list - who have contributed the input and support that managed to get us to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. Anriette *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to announce the call for applications for the first African School on Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 July 2013. Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society of principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. While few contest the definition itself, the respective roles, responsibility, power and influence of various stakeholder groups continue to be the subject of intense debate. Also contested is the institutional ecosystem within which decisions that impact on the internet are being made, as well as the principles on which such governance should be based. What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and participating effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African participation in IG, be it in technical, social or political spheres, is insufficient and (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional strategies aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, political and cultural development. The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was held in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual event and has given rise to the South School on IG held annually in Latin America for the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. The African School on IG will build on their experience but customise session content to meet the needs of African IG interest groups. We will utilise the expertise that exists within the continent as well as that of international academics and practitioners in the field. Topics to be covered include: * History and overview of IG * Policy, development and human rights * Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, internet intermediaries * Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges and opportunities APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: * Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 but who would need to arrive earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) * Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and accommodation for the duration of the School) The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation and other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation in the African School on IG. To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call for Applications AfriIG_31052013.pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 371927 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 05:40:36 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 21:40:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications In-Reply-To: <51AC6185.90104@apc.org> References: <51AC6185.90104@apc.org> Message-ID: <91AEC940-1D5D-4E7D-9005-2762C9F1DCFF@gmail.com> This is fantastic Anriette. :) Sent from my iPad On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the > first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take > place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in Durban > South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on on this > list - who have contributed the input and support that managed to get us > to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. > > Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. > > Anriette > > *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on > Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* > > The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD > Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to > announce the call for applications for the first African School on > Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 July > 2013. > > Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and > application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society of > principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and > programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. While few > contest the definition itself, the respective roles, responsibility, > power and influence of various stakeholder groups continue to be the > subject of intense debate. Also contested is the institutional ecosystem > within which decisions that impact on the internet are being made, as > well as the principles on which such governance should be based. > > What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and participating > effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African participation in > IG, be it in technical, social or political spheres, is insufficient and > (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and > inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, > businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and > collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional strategies > aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, political and > cultural development. > > The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was held > in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual event and has > given rise to the South School on IG > held annually in Latin America for > the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. > The African School on IG will build on their experience but customise > session content to meet the needs of African IG interest groups. We will > utilise the expertise that exists within the continent as well as that > of international academics and practitioners in the field. Topics to be > covered include: > > * > > History and overview of IG > > * > > Policy, development and human rights > > * > > Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, > internet intermediaries > > * > > Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges > and opportunities > > > APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: > > * > > Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 > but who would need to arrive > earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) > > * > > Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want > to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and > accommodation for the duration of the School) > > The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation and > other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation in the > African School on IG. > > > To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June > 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 babatope at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 06:14:36 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:14:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications In-Reply-To: <91AEC940-1D5D-4E7D-9005-2762C9F1DCFF@gmail.com> References: <51AC6185.90104@apc.org> <91AEC940-1D5D-4E7D-9005-2762C9F1DCFF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Great news Anriette. Seems your link below has a slight error though. Best Regards, On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > This is fantastic Anriette. :) > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear all > > > > I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the > > first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take > > place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in Durban > > South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on on this > > list - who have contributed the input and support that managed to get us > > to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. > > > > Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. > > > > Anriette > > > > *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on > > Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* > > > > The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD > > Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to > > announce the call for applications for the first African School on > > Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 July > > 2013. > > > > Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and > > application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society of > > principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and > > programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. While few > > contest the definition itself, the respective roles, responsibility, > > power and influence of various stakeholder groups continue to be the > > subject of intense debate. Also contested is the institutional ecosystem > > within which decisions that impact on the internet are being made, as > > well as the principles on which such governance should be based. > > > > What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and participating > > effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African participation in > > IG, be it in technical, social or political spheres, is insufficient and > > (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and > > inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, > > businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and > > collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional strategies > > aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, political and > > cultural development. > > > > The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was held > > in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual event and has > > given rise to the South School on IG > > held annually in Latin America for > > the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. > > The African School on IG will build on their experience but customise > > session content to meet the needs of African IG interest groups. We will > > utilise the expertise that exists within the continent as well as that > > of international academics and practitioners in the field. Topics to be > > covered include: > > > > * > > > > History and overview of IG > > > > * > > > > Policy, development and human rights > > > > * > > > > Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, > > internet intermediaries > > > > * > > > > Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges > > and opportunities > > > > > > APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: > > > > * > > > > Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 > > but who would need to arrive > > earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) > > > > * > > > > Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want > > to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and > > accommodation for the duration of the School) > > > > The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation and > > other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation in the > > African School on IG. > > > > > > To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June > > 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > > -- Babatope Soremi A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end.... TB Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort. *John Ruskin * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 3 06:26:08 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 06:26:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > My 2c > > Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR > CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources > related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In > such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource > constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of > collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. I prefer this new text. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 07:13:38 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:13:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> Message-ID: Just to address what seems to me a bit of a misunderstanding... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:13 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Hi Bill, > > > > My question, and tentative answer, was predicated on the notion that > there is no issue with the role of the other stakeholders within ICANN (see > constituency structures), but only with governments. But maybe you're right > suggesting that the whole framework be redefined for all stakeholders at > once. In which case, this will have to be a more complex exercise which > will require that the whole thorn that is "respective roles and > responsibilities" be removed or all aspects resolved once for all. > > Something to consider is whether there is a one to one relationship > between organizations and their roles, or whether an organization > may have multiple "respective roles"... I explore this question with > respect the "role of government" below. > > > The solution you're proposing suggests to me two opposing lines of > argument: > > > > 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body > to which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a > multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal > footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more > like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I > can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly > distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions. > > Wow... lots of assumptions embedded in the above solution. In the > Affirmation > of Commitments (at least as I understand it), ICANN is committing to a > particular > government (USG) to uphold certain important principles and organize > periodic > reviews of its commitments. Governments seeking similar commitments from > ICANN could probably get a similar Affirmation of Commitment and > participate in > those periodically reviews (I presume - I am neither a government nor have > I asked > ICANN to enter into such an AoC... ;-) > > I note that you use the phrase "the authoritative body"; this implies a > central body > as opposed to ICANN making these commitments to directly to all governments > that require such and wish to participate in the reviews via entry into an > AoC > agreement. If ICANN is willing to commit to these principles, and be held > by > governments accountable to them, I'm having trouble understanding why there > is some additional "body" involved in your solution. > I do not see ICANN signing, say, 120 AoCs with a series of 120 governments just because each one decides for itself that ICANN needs to sign such document with them (a scenario that derives from what you're saying above, for nothing guarantees that all AoCs will be a cut-and-paste of the existing one and I don't see all the other governments flying to D.C. to join the Congress when it holds those AoC-enabled hearings.) So on the multiple AoCs scenario, I don't think ICANN has much incentive to do that and accept the burden to manage that many separate sets of commitments of possible legal consequences, just because any country wants to have that imposed onto it (keeping in mind that governments already have the recourse afforded to them by the bylaws article you quote below in case there was an issue of illegality in their country with any ICANN policy.) Instead, and with a view to transitioning from the USG current role (or position) to one similar or other roles (to be defined through the negotiations that will then take place), I can see a collection of willing governments collectively negotiating and signing one single document with ICANN. This is not a treaty process. The opportunity will be well publicized to governments but their membership (or manifestation of interest to join) will be voluntary, a la GAC. Once they join, a negotiating group comprised of government and ICANN delegates will be formed to hammer out the draft of the agreement to be signed between them and ICANN. The global internet community will be invited to comment and give inputs, etc. Once there is a consensus on a text, a structure or an individual delegated by that whole collection of governments will sign on their behalf one Agreement with ICANN (instead of having an agreement with each government separately.) Please note: i) This is a brushing in broad strokes of the scenario that stems from the options I presented earlier, as a response to your reading (I didn't have to spend a lot of time thinking about all the details, so please bear with me, nothing is set in stone.) But this scenario corresponds to option 2, rather than option 1 above which instead focuses on a multistakeholder AoC-type agreement with ICANN, not just a government-ICANN agreement. ii) I use the term "authoritative body" first because I consider the current USG position as an authoritative one: they have delegated that function to ICANN which has to account back to them, not to mention they are in position to sanction ICANN policies one way or the other, and my understanding is that it is that role that we are seeking to evolve, so in that context I don't think the terminology is misplaced or misused; second, it is true that I am assuming some kind of structure will have to be organized with the authority to act on behalf of all governments who join that process. My take is that this is not particularly centralized beyond what will be required to have one Agreement with a collection of actors, as opposed to having as many agreements as there are counterparts (minus 1). Most importantly, that body is not meant to replace anybody (as you seem to interpret above) but could be used by the collection of willing governments to do one ore more of these three things: negotiate the agreement, sign it, or carried out the government functions on a continuous basis (i.e. outside "statutory" sessions), all on behalf of the collection of individual governments. Now I agree you may also have all those things done by all the concerned governments individually, a bit like they do with treaties (up to each one to form or join alliances in the process.) > > The oversight role for governments via the AoC is only one role available; > it does > not address the role of governments in the policy development process. It > is quite > possible that participating in policy development is a different role, but > still one > available to governments that wish more than just participating via the > oversight > role provided in the Affirmation of Commitments. For example, with > respect to number > resource policy under ICANN, governments are free to propose policy and > comment > on policy proposals underway in the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) > development > processes just as any other participant. The "policy development" role > is available > to all, and some governments do also participate at this level of the > policy formation > process. > > It is also possible that government participation through the GAC is yet a > third role, > since it is not provided for the normal course of policy development, but > (per the ICANN > Bylaws) to "consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they > relate to > concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an > interaction > between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or > where > they may affect public policy issues." This appears to be a liaison > role, whereby > governments have an opportunity to apprise ICANN of how its activities and > policies > may intersect laws and agreements. Telling ICANN that a policy has an > interaction > with a given law or agreement is important, but is not the same as actual > participation > during the course of policy development and should not be lightly > co-mingled. > > In truth, the question may not be "what is the role of government," but > more likely > "what are the available _roles_ for government" to play with respect to > coordination > of critical Internet resources. > I agree with you on all that. The comparison with the AoC by the phrase "AoC-type agreement" was not meant to say the current AoC content will be retained. The content of the new framework will be negotiated anew, with the definition of all types of role, relationships as well as all roles and functions (for governments or for all stakeholders in this particular document, depending on the type of framework eventually chosen for it), safe unnecessary levels of detail. Thanks, Mawaki > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Not being a government, I do not intend to > enter into > an AoC agreement with ICANN, but as a citizen of the > Internet I still > intend to hold them accountable to the principles > therein (at least via > the court of public opinion... ;-) > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jun 3 08:03:59 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 07:03:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2013, at 6:13 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Just to address what seems to me a bit of a misunderstanding... > ... > I do not see ICANN signing, say, 120 AoCs with a series of 120 governments just because each one decides for itself that ICANN needs to sign such document with them (a scenario that derives from what you're saying above, for nothing guarantees that all AoCs will be a cut-and-paste of the existing one and I don't see all the other governments flying to D.C. to join the Congress when it holds those AoC-enabled hearings.) So on the multiple AoCs scenario, I don't think ICANN has much incentive to do that and accept the burden to manage that many separate sets of commitments of possible legal consequences, just because any country wants to have that imposed onto it (keeping in mind that governments already have the recourse afforded to them by the bylaws article you quote below in case there was an issue of illegality in their country with any ICANN policy.) Okay, some points to consider: - In my view, ICANN has enormous incentive to sign AoC's with any government that wishes such, since it provides a straightforward well-defined relationship with governments which otherwise doesn't exist today - The effort involved in the reviews is quite large, interfacing with nearly every part of ICANN and also the various supporting organizations and constituencies. They are not "run by the US Congress"; you should refer to Avri's earlier note on the composition of the ATRT for additional details. It takes enormous effort to hold true external reviews of conformance to the commitments, and there is no way that these could be done multiple times in each review period, i.e. the reviews have to be common to all organizations which sign an AoC. > Instead, and with a view to transitioning from the USG current role (or position) to one similar or other roles (to be defined through the negotiations that will then take place), I can see a collection of willing governments collectively negotiating and signing one single document with ICANN. This is not a treaty process. The opportunity will be well publicized to governments but their membership (or manifestation of interest to join) will be voluntary, a la GAC. Once they join, a negotiating group comprised of government and ICANN delegates will be formed to hammer out the draft of the agreement to be signed between them and ICANN. The global internet community will be invited to comment and give inputs, etc. Once there is a consensus on a text, a structure or an individual delegated by that whole collection of governments will sign on their behalf one Agreement with ICANN (instead of having an agreement with each government separately.) While it is certainly possible to have common negotiation (and certainly having a single set of commitments makes good sense), I frankly do not see the benefit to ICANN of your proposed agreement structure, and if I were making the call, I would enter into the same agreement text directly with each government. > Please note: > i) This is a brushing in broad strokes of the scenario that stems from the options I presented earlier, as a response to your reading (I didn't have to spend a lot of time thinking about all the details, so please bear with me, nothing is set in stone.) But this scenario corresponds to option 2, rather than option 1 above which instead focuses on a multistakeholder AoC-type agreement with ICANN, not just a government-ICANN agreement. You use the term "multistakeholder" agreement, and yet I am unsure if the role of AoC oversight counterparty is a role that's meaningful for any entity other than a government. > ii) I use the term "authoritative body" first because I consider the current USG position as an authoritative one: they have delegated that function to ICANN which has to account back to them, not to mention they are in position to sanction ICANN policies one way or the other, and my understanding is that it is that role that we are seeking to evolve, so in that context I don't think the terminology is misplaced or misused; second, it is true that I am assuming some kind of structure will have to be organized with the authority to act on behalf of all governments who join that process. My take is that this is not particularly centralized beyond what will be required to have one Agreement with a collection of actors, as opposed to having as many agreements as there are counterparts (minus 1). Most importantly, that body is not meant to replace anybody (as you seem to interpret above) but could be used by the collection of willing governments to do one ore more of these three things: negotiate the agreement, sign it, or carried out the government functions on a continuous basis (i.e. outside "statutory" sessions), all on behalf of the collection of individual governments. Now I agree you may also have all those things done by all the concerned governments individually, a bit like they do with treaties (up to each one to form or join alliances in the process.) You seem to view the AoC relationship to ICANN as somehow related to the USG/NTIA "IANA Function" contract, where is it a completed independent concept... You can have 100 governments involved in performing oversight of ICANN, and that does not change USG having a contract with ICANN to perform certain central registry functions. If we had many such governments involved via AoC's, that would allow further consideration of how to evolve the IANA function contract, but the resolution of that contract doesn't necessarily involve the AoC signatories... FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Structure follows function (or at least should in rational systems...) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 3 08:18:57 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:18:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications In-Reply-To: References: <51AC6185.90104@apc.org> <91AEC940-1D5D-4E7D-9005-2762C9F1DCFF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51AC89B1.8060105@apc.org> Thanks for the nice words Sala. As you can guess there are many people who have worked to get us this far. Nnenna, Towela Nyirenda Jere, Nnenna Nwakanma, Emilar Vushe, Dorothy Gordon, Makane Faye among others. We have had lots of moral and other support from the European School people (Wolfgang, Avri, Bill) and from Diplo. Babatope, I checked the link and it does work.. but one needs to be careful not to include the *. Here it is again, in Tiny URL and long form: https://www.apc.org/limesurvey/index.php/753225/lang-en http://tw.gs/Q7uehW Best Anriette On 03/06/2013 12:14, Babatope Soremi wrote: > Great news Anriette. Seems your link below has a slight error though. > > Best Regards, > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is fantastic Anriette. :) >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the >>> first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take >>> place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in Durban >>> South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on on this >>> list - who have contributed the input and support that managed to get us >>> to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. >>> >>> Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on >>> Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* >>> >>> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD >>> Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to >>> announce the call for applications for the first African School on >>> Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 July >>> 2013. >>> >>> Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and >>> application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society of >>> principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and >>> programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. While few >>> contest the definition itself, the respective roles, responsibility, >>> power and influence of various stakeholder groups continue to be the >>> subject of intense debate. Also contested is the institutional ecosystem >>> within which decisions that impact on the internet are being made, as >>> well as the principles on which such governance should be based. >>> >>> What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and participating >>> effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African participation in >>> IG, be it in technical, social or political spheres, is insufficient and >>> (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and >>> inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, >>> businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and >>> collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional strategies >>> aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, political and >>> cultural development. >>> >>> The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was held >>> in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual event and has >>> given rise to the South School on IG >>> held annually in Latin America for >>> the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. >>> The African School on IG will build on their experience but customise >>> session content to meet the needs of African IG interest groups. We will >>> utilise the expertise that exists within the continent as well as that >>> of international academics and practitioners in the field. Topics to be >>> covered include: >>> >>> * >>> >>> History and overview of IG >>> >>> * >>> >>> Policy, development and human rights >>> >>> * >>> >>> Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, >>> internet intermediaries >>> >>> * >>> >>> Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges >>> and opportunities >>> >>> >>> APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: >>> >>> * >>> >>> Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 >>> but who would need to arrive >>> earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) >>> >>> * >>> >>> Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want >>> to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and >>> accommodation for the duration of the School) >>> >>> The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation and >>> other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation in the >>> African School on IG. >>> >>> >>> To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June >>> 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Jun 3 08:20:32 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:20:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51AC8A10.6080207@apc.org> +1 Anriette On 03/06/2013 12:26, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > wrote: >> My 2c >> >> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR >> CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources >> related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In >> such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource >> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. > I prefer this new text. > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 09:08:51 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:08:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] African School on Internet Governance: call for applications Message-ID: <017101ce605b$877252f0$9656f8d0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 8:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications Thanks for the nice words Sala. As you can guess there are many people who have worked to get us this far. Nnenna, Towela Nyirenda Jere, Nnenna Nwakanma, Emilar Vushe, Dorothy Gordon, Makane Faye among others. We have had lots of moral and other support from the European School people (Wolfgang, Avri, Bill) and from Diplo. Babatope, I checked the link and it does work.. but one needs to be careful not to include the *. Here it is again, in Tiny URL and long form: https://www.apc.org/limesurvey/index.php/753225/lang-en http://tw.gs/Q7uehW Best Anriette On 03/06/2013 12:14, Babatope Soremi wrote: > Great news Anriette. Seems your link below has a slight error though. > > Best Regards, > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is fantastic Anriette. :) >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the >>> first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take >>> place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in >>> Durban South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on >>> on this list - who have contributed the input and support that >>> managed to get us to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. >>> >>> Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on >>> Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* >>> >>> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD >>> Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to >>> announce the call for applications for the first African School on >>> Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 >>> July 2013. >>> >>> Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and >>> application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society >>> of principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, >>> and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. >>> While few contest the definition itself, the respective roles, >>> responsibility, power and influence of various stakeholder groups >>> continue to be the subject of intense debate. Also contested is the >>> institutional ecosystem within which decisions that impact on the >>> internet are being made, as well as the principles on which such governance should be based. >>> >>> What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and >>> participating effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African >>> participation in IG, be it in technical, social or political >>> spheres, is insufficient and >>> (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and >>> inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, >>> businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and >>> collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional >>> strategies aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, >>> political and cultural development. >>> >>> The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was >>> held in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual >>> event and has given rise to the South School on IG >>> held annually in Latin America >>> for the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. >>> The African School on IG will build on their experience but >>> customise session content to meet the needs of African IG interest >>> groups. We will utilise the expertise that exists within the >>> continent as well as that of international academics and >>> practitioners in the field. Topics to be covered include: >>> >>> * >>> >>> History and overview of IG >>> >>> * >>> >>> Policy, development and human rights >>> >>> * >>> >>> Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, >>> internet intermediaries >>> >>> * >>> >>> Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges >>> and opportunities >>> >>> >>> APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: >>> >>> * >>> >>> Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 >>> but who would need to arrive >>> earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) >>> >>> * >>> >>> Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want >>> to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and >>> accommodation for the duration of the School) >>> >>> The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation >>> and other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation >>> in the African School on IG. >>> >>> >>> To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June >>> 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 kichango at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 09:34:31 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:34:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> Message-ID: Two short remarks: 1. The cost/benefit (incentive/disincentive) analysis for a collective governmental (or multilateral) agreement with ICANN has to be appreciated both from ICANN and from government perspectives. And I admit, at this point, I'm not pretty sure on which side the incentive scale will tip for having either such collective framework or a collection of bilateral agreements with ICANN. Adding to that, there might be a challenge in having every country sign off on the same exact agreement (which they didn't negotiated) with ICANN, but if that works then more power to ICANN. 2. Yes, I'm culprit for (implicitly) lumping the AoC and the notion of the IANA Function... That is because I think it is also implicit in the reasoning people make when they think of USG as holding a privileged or exclusive position (above the "equal footing" level, so to speak) over ICANN and anything it does for fulfilling its mission. I'm not sure if opening up the mechanism of the AoC (which as you clearly show focuses mainly on the oversight of the commitments therein) to multiple governments without any subsequent and related amendment to the IANA relationship between ICANN and USG will completely that concern to rest. But again, if that works... All that is open to discussion and I don't have any definite answer. Mawaki On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 3, 2013, at 6:13 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Just to address what seems to me a bit of a misunderstanding... > > ... > > I do not see ICANN signing, say, 120 AoCs with a series of 120 > governments just because each one decides for itself that ICANN needs to > sign such document with them (a scenario that derives from what you're > saying above, for nothing guarantees that all AoCs will be a cut-and-paste > of the existing one and I don't see all the other governments flying to > D.C. to join the Congress when it holds those AoC-enabled hearings.) So on > the multiple AoCs scenario, I don't think ICANN has much incentive to do > that and accept the burden to manage that many separate sets of commitments > of possible legal consequences, just because any country wants to have that > imposed onto it (keeping in mind that governments already have the recourse > afforded to them by the bylaws article you quote below in case there was an > issue of illegality in their country with any ICANN policy.) > > Okay, some points to consider: > > - In my view, ICANN has enormous incentive to sign AoC's with any > government > that wishes such, since it provides a straightforward well-defined > relationship > with governments which otherwise doesn't exist today > > - The effort involved in the reviews is quite large, interfacing with > nearly every > part of ICANN and also the various supporting organizations and > constituencies. > They are not "run by the US Congress"; you should refer to Avri's > earlier note on > the composition of the ATRT for additional details. It takes enormous > effort to > hold true external reviews of conformance to the commitments, and there > is no > way that these could be done multiple times in each review period, i.e. > the reviews > have to be common to all organizations which sign an AoC. > > > Instead, and with a view to transitioning from the USG current role (or > position) to one similar or other roles (to be defined through the > negotiations that will then take place), I can see a collection of willing > governments collectively negotiating and signing one single document with > ICANN. This is not a treaty process. The opportunity will be well > publicized to governments but their membership (or manifestation of > interest to join) will be voluntary, a la GAC. Once they join, a > negotiating group comprised of government and ICANN delegates will be > formed to hammer out the draft of the agreement to be signed between them > and ICANN. The global internet community will be invited to comment and > give inputs, etc. Once there is a consensus on a text, a structure or an > individual delegated by that whole collection of governments will sign on > their behalf one Agreement with ICANN (instead of having an agreement with > each government separately.) > > While it is certainly possible to have common negotiation (and certainly > having > a single set of commitments makes good sense), I frankly do not see the > benefit > to ICANN of your proposed agreement structure, and if I were making the > call, I > would enter into the same agreement text directly with each government. > > > Please note: > > i) This is a brushing in broad strokes of the scenario that stems from > the options I presented earlier, as a response to your reading (I didn't > have to spend a lot of time thinking about all the details, so please bear > with me, nothing is set in stone.) But this scenario corresponds to option > 2, rather than option 1 above which instead focuses on a multistakeholder > AoC-type agreement with ICANN, not just a government-ICANN agreement. > > You use the term "multistakeholder" agreement, and yet I am unsure if > the role > of AoC oversight counterparty is a role that's meaningful for any entity > other than > a government. > > > ii) I use the term "authoritative body" first because I consider the > current USG position as an authoritative one: they have delegated that > function to ICANN which has to account back to them, not to mention they > are in position to sanction ICANN policies one way or the other, and my > understanding is that it is that role that we are seeking to evolve, so in > that context I don't think the terminology is misplaced or misused; second, > it is true that I am assuming some kind of structure will have to be > organized with the authority to act on behalf of all governments who join > that process. My take is that this is not particularly centralized beyond > what will be required to have one Agreement with a collection of actors, as > opposed to having as many agreements as there are counterparts (minus 1). > Most importantly, that body is not meant to replace anybody (as you seem to > interpret above) but could be used by the collection of willing governments > to do one ore more of these three things: negotiate the agreement, sign it, > or carried out the government functions on a continuous basis (i.e. outside > "statutory" sessions), all on behalf of the collection of individual > governments. Now I agree you may also have all those things done by all the > concerned governments individually, a bit like they do with treaties (up to > each one to form or join alliances in the process.) > > You seem to view the AoC relationship to ICANN as somehow related to the > USG/NTIA "IANA Function" contract, where is it a completed independent > concept... You can have 100 governments involved in performing oversight > of ICANN, and that does not change USG having a contract with ICANN to > perform certain central registry functions. If we had many such > governments > involved via AoC's, that would allow further consideration of how to > evolve the > IANA function contract, but the resolution of that contract doesn't > necessarily > involve the AoC signatories... > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. Structure follows function (or at least > should in > rational systems...) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Jun 3 10:15:53 2013 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:15:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] African School on Internet Governance: call for applications In-Reply-To: <017101ce605b$877252f0$9656f8d0$@gmail.com> References: <017101ce605b$877252f0$9656f8d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1370268953.59624.YahooMailNeo@web28904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Interesting school! If I come for the ISOC Chapter reunion earlier that, maybe I will be able to attend this School as well. Need to check very well the dates.   ------------------------------------------------------ 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 : michael gurstein À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen' Envoyé le : Lundi 3 juin 2013 15h08 Objet : RE: [governance] African School on Internet Governance: call for applications -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 8:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications Thanks for the nice words Sala. As you can guess there are many people who have worked to get us this far. Nnenna, Towela Nyirenda Jere, Nnenna Nwakanma, Emilar Vushe, Dorothy Gordon, Makane Faye among others. We have had lots of moral and other support from the European School people (Wolfgang, Avri, Bill) and from Diplo. Babatope, I checked the link and it does work.. but one needs to be careful not to include the *. Here it is again, in Tiny URL and long form: https://www.apc.org/limesurvey/index.php/753225/lang-en http://tw.gs/Q7uehW Best Anriette On 03/06/2013 12:14, Babatope Soremi wrote: > Great news Anriette. Seems your link below has a slight error though. > > Best Regards, > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is fantastic Anriette. :) >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the >>> first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take >>> place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in >>> Durban South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on >>> on this list - who have contributed the input and support that >>> managed to get us to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. >>> >>> Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on >>> Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* >>> >>> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD >>> Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to >>> announce the call for applications for the first African School on >>> Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 >>> July 2013. >>> >>> Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and >>> application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society >>> of principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, >>> and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. >>> While few contest the definition itself, the respective roles, >>> responsibility, power and influence of various stakeholder groups >>> continue to be the subject of intense debate. Also contested is the >>> institutional ecosystem within which decisions that impact on the >>> internet are being made, as well as the principles on which such governance should be based. >>> >>> What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and >>> participating effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African >>> participation in IG, be it in technical, social or political >>> spheres, is insufficient and >>> (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and >>> inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, >>> businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and >>> collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional >>> strategies aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, >>> political and cultural development. >>> >>> The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was >>> held in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual >>> event and has given rise to the South School on IG >>> held annually in Latin America >>> for the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. >>> The African School on IG will build on their experience but >>> customise session content to meet the needs of African IG interest >>> groups. We will utilise the expertise that exists within the >>> continent as well as that of international academics and >>> practitioners in the field. Topics to be covered include: >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    History and overview of IG >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    Policy, development and human rights >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, >>>    internet intermediaries >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges >>>    and opportunities >>> >>> >>> APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 >>>    but who would need to arrive >>>    earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want >>>    to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and >>>    accommodation for the duration of the School) >>> >>> The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation >>> and other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation >>> in the African School on IG. >>> >>> >>> To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June >>> 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 3 10:33:31 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:33:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 14:08:55 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes >Hi Roland, as at the end of the first para, "The inherent danger of the >proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, >destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models." That merely restates my question. Why does DRM shut out those people who would not use it anyway (eg the Open Source folks). Meanwhile, surely their innovation would be to distribute their own world-class movies, without DRM (as well as the software they are more normally known for). >> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >> sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, >> health and diverse content. In such regions, access to >> information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, >> but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities > > Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the > Open Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work > freely? -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jun 3 10:51:05 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:51:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FE01@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Proper question is: Why should DRM on a Disney Movie download be baked into html5? Seeing as it is being baked in elsewhere, no need to feel sorry for Mickey Mouse's..rights: http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2013/06/03/arm-bakes-drm-graphics-chips.htm Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:33 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In message , at 14:08:55 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes >Hi Roland, as at the end of the first para, "The inherent danger of the >proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, >destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models." That merely restates my question. Why does DRM shut out those people who would not use it anyway (eg the Open Source folks). Meanwhile, surely their innovation would be to distribute their own world-class movies, without DRM (as well as the software they are more normally known for). >> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >> sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, >> health and diverse content. In such regions, access to >> information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, >> but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities > > Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the > Open Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work > freely? -- 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 jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jun 3 12:00:02 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:00:02 -0500 Subject: Affirmation of commitments Re: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Two short remarks: > > 1. The cost/benefit (incentive/disincentive) analysis for a collective governmental (or multilateral) agreement with ICANN has to be appreciated both from ICANN and from government perspectives. And I admit, at this point, I'm not pretty sure on which side the incentive scale will tip for having either such collective framework or a collection of bilateral agreements with ICANN. Adding to that, there might be a challenge in having every country sign off on the same exact agreement (which they didn't negotiated) with ICANN, but if that works then more power to ICANN. Agreed, the benefit has to be looked at from both directions... I believe the underlying concept is that ICANN, through the AoC, has offered to be externally accountable to at least one government (USG), potentially to others (although I can't readily find a clean reference from ICANN of such an offer - hmm...) Right now, governments (other than USG) have no direct commitment from ICANN on these principles, and it might be useful for them to have such, either individually entered or collectively (e.g. the EU could be such a party) > 2. Yes, I'm culprit for (implicitly) lumping the AoC and the notion of the IANA Function... That is because I think it is also implicit in the reasoning people make when they think of USG as holding a privileged or exclusive position (above the "equal footing" level, so to speak) over ICANN and anything it does for fulfilling its mission. I'm not sure if opening up the mechanism of the AoC (which as you clearly show focuses mainly on the oversight of the commitments therein) to multiple governments without any subsequent and related amendment to the IANA relationship between ICANN and USG will completely that concern to rest. But again, if that works... The USG has several unique roles, and I'd recommend considering the one by one to determine if they need to remain unique. I do not believe that the oversight role needs to remain unique, as noted above and in prior email. If this oversight role were to be shared among several governments, then one of the items that could become a topic of these reviews is the existence of the IANA Function contract vis-a-vis ICANN's commitment in "ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users." I believe it is safe to say this is not as likely to arise if the only accountability to these principles is to the USG... > All that is open to discussion and I don't have any definite answer. Excellent discussion... thanks for sharing your thoughts! /John p.s. (Regarding the role of "being the party issuing the IANA Function Contract", I'm not sure that is actually a necessary role... see this earlier discussion on same) Disclaimers: My views alone. Contents may be flammable; keep away from the spark of action or the flame of open discussion... :-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 3 12:22:22 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:22:22 +0000 Subject: Affirmation of commitments Re: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:00 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 3, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Two short remarks: > > > > 1. The cost/benefit (incentive/disincentive) analysis for a collective > governmental (or multilateral) agreement with ICANN has to be appreciated > both from ICANN and from government perspectives. And I admit, at this > point, I'm not pretty sure on which side the incentive scale will tip for > having either such collective framework or a collection of bilateral > agreements with ICANN. Adding to that, there might be a challenge in having > every country sign off on the same exact agreement (which they didn't > negotiated) with ICANN, but if that works then more power to ICANN. > > Agreed, the benefit has to be looked at from both directions... I believe > the > underlying concept is that ICANN, through the AoC, has offered to be > externally > accountable to at least one government (USG), potentially to others > (although > I can't readily find a clean reference from ICANN of such an offer - > hmm...) > > Right now, governments (other than USG) have no direct commitment from > ICANN on these principles, and it might be useful for them to have such, > either individually entered or collectively (e.g. the EU could be such a > party) > > > 2. Yes, I'm culprit for (implicitly) lumping the AoC and the notion of > the IANA Function... That is because I think it is also implicit in the > reasoning people make when they think of USG as holding a privileged or > exclusive position (above the "equal footing" level, so to speak) over > ICANN and anything it does for fulfilling its mission. I'm not sure if > opening up the mechanism of the AoC (which as you clearly show focuses > mainly on the oversight of the commitments therein) to multiple governments > without any subsequent and related amendment to the IANA relationship > between ICANN and USG will completely that concern to rest. But again, if > that works... > > The USG has several unique roles, and I'd recommend considering the one > by one to determine if they need to remain unique. I do not believe that > the > oversight role needs to remain unique, as noted above and in prior email. > > If this oversight role were to be shared among several governments, then > one > of the items that could become a topic of these reviews is the existence > of the > IANA Function contract vis-a-vis ICANN's commitment in "ensuring > accountability, > transparency and the interests of global Internet users." I believe it > is safe to > say this is not as likely to arise if the only accountability to these > principles is > +1 Thanks for providing clarification and thoughtful arguments. Mawaki > to the USG... > > > All that is open to discussion and I don't have any definite answer. > > Excellent discussion... thanks for sharing your thoughts! > /John > > p.s. (Regarding the role of "being the party issuing the IANA Function > Contract", > I'm not sure that is actually a necessary role... see this earlier > discussion > > on same) > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Contents may be flammable; keep away > from the spark of action or the flame of open > discussion... :-) > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 3 12:37:43 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:37:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FE01@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FE01@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FE01 at SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 14:51:05 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Lee W McKnight writes >Proper question is: Why should DRM on a Disney Movie download be baked >into html5? The ability for Disney to turn on DRM is a perfectly legitimate thing to be "baked in" as you say. Content providers who are DRM-refuseniks don't have to turn on DRM for their products, which will continue to be freely available. You might surmise that I don't think being prevented from stealing a Disney movie is very high up on my list of reasons to be sorry for someone developing Open Source software in a developing country. There are plenty of battles to fight, but this does not seem to me to be one of them. >Seeing as it is being baked in elsewhere, no need to feel sorry for >Mickey Mouse's..rights: > >http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2013/06/03/arm-bakes-drm-graphics-chips.htm > >Lee >________________________________________ >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry >[roland at internetpolicyagency.com] >Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:33 AM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the >IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 > >In message >, at >14:08:55 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > writes >>Hi Roland, as at the end of the first para, "The inherent danger of the >>proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, >>destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models." > >That merely restates my question. Why does DRM shut out those people who >would not use it anyway (eg the Open Source folks). > >Meanwhile, surely their innovation would be to distribute their own >world-class movies, without DRM (as well as the software they are more >normally known for). > >>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >>> sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, >>> health and diverse content. In such regions, access to >>> information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, >>> but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities > > >> Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the >> Open Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work >> freely? > >-- >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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 3 14:49:28 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:19:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?B?VGhlIEJhbmFsaXR5IG9mIOKAmERvbuKAmXQgQmUg?= =?UTF-8?B?RXZpbOKAmQ==?= Message-ID: <51ACE538.2090207@itforchange.net> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality-of-googles-dont-be-evil.html?_r=0 Reading this article by Julian Assange, most people will be left with a gnawing feeling of deep concern and worry, but they may only be able to frown and fret helplessly about where the world seems headed. However, those among the Internet governance civil society will perhaps have to read it with a certain sense of introspection and political responsibility.... I think it is worth having a discussion in the IGC on this article, examining what needs the support of civil society and maybe what doesn't so much, assuming there is at least some significance to what Assange writes. Article also cut pastes below.... The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ By JULIAN ASSANGE “THE New Digital Age” is a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its leading witch doctors, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who construct a new idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom reflects the ever closer union between the State Department and Silicon Valley, as personified by Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google , and Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who is now director of Google Ideas. The authors met in occupied Baghdad in 2009, when the book was conceived. Strolling among the ruins, the two became excited that consumer technology was transforming a society flattened by United States military occupation. They decided the tech industry could be a powerful agent of American foreign policy. The book proselytizes the role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not. The prose is terse, the argument confident and the wisdom — banal. But this isn’t a book designed to be read. It is a major declaration designed to foster alliances. “The New Digital Age” is, beyond anything else, an attempt by Google to position itself as America’s geopolitical visionary — the one company that can answer the question “Where should America go?” It is not surprising that a respectable cast of the world’s most famous warmongers has been trotted out to give its stamp of approval to this enticement to Western soft power. The acknowledgments give pride of place to Henry Kissinger, who along with Tony Blair and the former C.I.A. director Michael Hayden provided advance praise for the book. In the book the authors happily take up the white geek’s burden. A liberal sprinkling of convenient, hypothetical dark-skinned worthies appear: Congolese fisherwomen, graphic designers in Botswana, anticorruption activists in San Salvador and illiterate Masai cattle herders in the Serengeti are all obediently summoned to demonstrate the progressive properties of Google phones jacked into the informational supply chain of the Western empire. The authors offer an expertly banalized version of tomorrow’s world: the gadgetry of decades hence is predicted to be much like what we have right now — only cooler. “Progress” is driven by the inexorable spread of American consumer technology over the surface of the earth. Already, every day, another million or so Google-run mobile devices are activated. Google will interpose itself, and hence the United States government, between the communications of every human being not in China (naughty China). Commodities just become more marvelous; young, urban professionals sleep, work and shop with greater ease and comfort; democracy is insidiously subverted by technologies of surveillance, and control is enthusiastically rebranded as “participation”; and our present world order of systematized domination, intimidation and oppression continues, unmentioned, unafflicted or only faintly perturbed. The authors are sour about the Egyptian triumph of 2011. They dismiss the Egyptian youth witheringly, claiming that “the mix of activism and arrogance in young people is universal.” Digitally inspired mobs mean revolutions will be “easier to start” but “harder to finish.” Because of the absence of strong leaders, the result, or so Mr. Kissinger tells the authors, will be coalition governments that descend into autocracies. They say there will be “no more springs” (but China is on the ropes). The authors fantasize about the future of “well resourced” revolutionary groups. A new “crop of consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.” “His” speeches (the future isn’t all that different) and writing will be fed “through complex feature-extraction and trend-analysis software suites” while “mapping his brain function,” and other “sophisticated diagnostics” will be used to “assess the weak parts of his political repertoire.” The book mirrors State Department institutional taboos and obsessions. It avoids meaningful criticism of Israel and Saudi Arabia. It pretends, quite extraordinarily, that the Latin American sovereignty movement, which has liberated so many from United States-backed plutocracies and dictatorships over the last 30 years, never happened. Referring instead to the region’s “aging leaders,” the book can’t see Latin America for Cuba. And, of course, the book frets theatrically over Washington’s favorite boogeymen: North Korea and Iran. Google, which started out as an expression of independent Californian graduate student culture — a decent, humane and playful culture — has, as it encountered the big, bad world, thrown its lot in with traditional Washington power elements, from the State Department to the National Security Agency. Despite accounting for an infinitesimal fraction of violent deaths globally, terrorism is a favorite brand in United States policy circles. This is a fetish that must also be catered to, and so “The Future of Terrorism” gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings, shutting down power grids and launching nuclear weapons. The authors then tar activists who engage in digital sit-ins with the same brush. I have a very different perspective. The advance of information technology epitomized by Google heralds the death of privacy for most people and shifts the world toward authoritarianism. This is the principal thesis in my book, “Cypherpunks.” But while Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Cohen tell us that the death of privacy will aid governments in “repressive autocracies” in “targeting their citizens,” they also say governments in “open” democracies will see it as “a gift” enabling them to “better respond to citizen and customer concerns.” In reality, the erosion of individual privacy in the West and the attendant centralization of power make abuses inevitable, moving the “good” societies closer to the “bad” ones. The section on “repressive autocracies” describes, disapprovingly, various repressive surveillance measures: legislation to insert back doors into software to enable spying on citizens, monitoring of social networks and the collection of intelligence on entire populations. All of these are already in widespread use in the United States. In fact, some of those measures — like the push to require every social-network profile to be linked to a real name — were spearheaded by Google itself. THE writing is on the wall, but the authors cannot see it. They borrow from William Dobson the idea that the media, in an autocracy, “allows for an opposition press as long as regime opponents understand where the unspoken limits are.” But these trends are beginning to emerge in the United States. No one doubts the chilling effects of the investigations into The Associated Press and Fox’s James Rosen. But there has been little analysis of Google’s role in complying with the Rosen subpoena. I have personal experience of these trends. The Department of Justice admitted in March that it was in its third year of a continuing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks. Court testimony states that its targets include “the founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks.” One alleged source, Bradley Manning, faces a 12-week trial beginning tomorrow, with 24 prosecution witnesses expected to testify in secret. This book is a balefully seminal work in which neither author has the language to see, much less to express, the titanic centralizing evil they are constructing. “What Lockheed Martin was to the 20th century,” they tell us, “technology and cybersecurity companies will be to the 21st.” Without even understanding how, they have updated and seamlessly implemented George Orwell’s prophecy. If you want a vision of the future, imagine Washington-backed Google Glasses strapped onto vacant human faces — forever. Zealots of the cult of consumer technology will find little to inspire them here, not that they ever seem to need it. But this is essential reading for anyone caught up in the struggle for the future, in view of one simple imperative: Know your enemy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 4 18:00:29 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:00:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Obama's faith in geek elites, who have your secrets References: <51ACCEC6.4080308@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <1C0C725A-ADEF-4695-989D-897E697ABC9D@gmail.com> > June 2, 2013 7:01 pm > > Obama’s faith in the geek elite who have your secrets > > By Edward Luce > > Self-interest guides the Big Data companies, and the same is often true of the White House > ©Matt Kenyon > On Monday, Barack Obama’s administration begins its court martial of Bradley Manning, the former US army private who uploaded hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks. Reasonable people disagree on whether Mr Manning “aided the enemy” (as President Obama’s prosecutors allege) or is a hero for helping to educate us about Washington’s shadowy drone programme. Most are surprised the White House is demanding a life sentence four years after putting Mr Manning behind bars. In their view, Mr Obama is a self-confessed geek with Silicon Valley’s transparent “Do no evil” values. Yet he regularly betrays these with his “Nixonian” mania for secrecy. > > Such concerns are charmingly naive: Mr Obama is no traitor to geek culture. His administration shares many of the faults and virtues of the Silicon Valley leaders to whom it is so closely allied. Mr Manning’s prosecution begins three days after the White House co-hosted its second “We the Geeks” conference with Google. This Thursday, Mr Obama will attend a fundraiser at the home of Vinod Khosla, one of Silicon Valley’s most celebrated venture capital geeks. And in the coming months the White House will be pushing for Congress to pass immigration reform – alongside a newly-created lobby group founded by Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook. This controversial outfit is called Forward (Fwd.us), which was also the slogan of Mr Obama’s 2012 campaign. > > One of the geekocracy’s main characteristics is a serene faith in its own good motives. It is not hard to imagine how much greater the US left’s outrage would be over the drone programme were it carried out by George W. Bush or Mitt Romney. When Mr Obama asks Americans to trust that he evaluates every target on his “kill list”, most acquiesce. That pass is also extended to Mr Obama’s “signature strikes”, which select targets by probability based on often sketchy information. But there is a world of difference between zapping a known target and taking an educated guess. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Mr Obama’s reputation for being a nerd shields him from tougher criticism. Call it geek exceptionalism. To his credit, Mr Obama conveyed last month that he shares much of this disquiet in a lapidary address on counterterrorism. > > If signature strikes – attacking suspected terrorists before they can act – are the stuff of the film Minority Report’s “pre-crimes”, the Obama campaign’s brilliant use of demographic data is about “pre-votes”. His data team has aggregated more detail about individual preferences than most voters know about themselves. Mr Obama is likely to use his database as a bargaining tool to help secure his legacy after 2016 (whoever is the Democratic nominee will need it to win). It is no coincidence this resembles the growing ingenuity with which Facebook, and other social media, cull their users’ personal information. Mr Obama’s operation was partly designed by Silicon Valley techies. The Obama administration is also a strong ally of Google, Facebook and others in pushing against Europe’s moves towards far stronger data privacy rights. France’s so-called “right to be forgotten” sparks as much derision in Washington as it does in San Francisco. “Trust us,” say the geeks. “We have noble motives.” > > The reality is more mundane. Self-interest, rather than virtue, guides the growing clout of these “Big Data” companies in Washington. The same is often true of Mr Obama. Big data’s agenda is not confined to immigration reform. Among other areas, it has a deep interest in shaping what Washington does on privacy, online education, the school system, the internet, corporate tax reform, cyber security and even cyber warfare. Big data is also likely to be influential in the US-European trade partnership talks, which start this month. Whether the sector becomes a thorn in the side of the process remains to be seen. Either way, Americans should be relieved someone is making the case for privacy. “I don’t say this often but I think the Europeans are on the right side of the data protection issue,” says Tyler Cowen, a leading libertarian economist. > > For while big data brings innovation, it also has dangerous side effects. Culture is already pushing Americans towards “data nudism”. Such currents will only get more acute. Before long, it will be possible to map an individual’s genetic sequencing at an affordable price. No one will be forced to attach their genetic record to online dating profiles. But potential mates may assume that anyone who chooses not to is concealing a genetic disorder. > > America’s middle classes are already in thrall to their often capricious credit scores – a determination that is notoriously hard to correct. In a world where the average home will have hundreds of sensors, and where ubiquitous tracking systems can intimately map an individual’s habits, the right to privacy could become an economic tool of survival. Already, US employers often demand a credit score, a drugs test and fingerprinting from many kinds of applicant. In the new digital world, the right to expunge past blemishes may turn into a rumbling civil struggle. > > Should such futurology bother Mr Obama? Yes. A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt pushed back against the power of the rail barons and oil titans – the great technological disrupters of his day. Mr Obama should pay closer heed to history. And he should become wary of geeks bearing gifts. > > edward.luce at ft.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 4 18:13:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:13:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Obama's faith in geek elites, who have your secrets In-Reply-To: <1C0C725A-ADEF-4695-989D-897E697ABC9D@gmail.com> References: <51ACCEC6.4080308@bluewin.ch> <1C0C725A-ADEF-4695-989D-897E697ABC9D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13f1140c7e9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Just how much do you know them, riaz, to forward this generalization? Blindly recycling articles that are couched in over broad generalities doesn't quite facilitate any discussion or any change from whatever current state that you find unacceptable --srs (htc one x) On 5 June 2013 12:00:29 AM riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > > > June 2, 2013 7:01 pm > > Obama’s faith in the geek elite who have your secrets > > By Edward Luce > > Self-interest guides the Big Data companies, and the same is often true > of the White House > > ©Matt Kenyon > > On Monday, Barack Obama’s administration begins its court martial of > Bradley Manning, the former US army private who uploaded hundreds of > thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks. Reasonable people disagree > on whether Mr Manning “aided the enemy” (as President Obama’s prosecutors > allege) or is a hero for helping to educate us about Washington’s shadowy > drone programme. Most are surprised the White House is demanding a life > sentence four years after putting Mr Manning behind bars. In their view, Mr > Obama is a self-confessed geek with Silicon Valley’s transparent “Do no > evil” values. Yet he regularly betrays these with his “Nixonian” mania for > secrecy. > > Such concerns are charmingly naive: Mr Obama is no traitor to geek > culture. His administration shares many of the faults and virtues of the > Silicon Valley leaders to whom it is so closely allied. Mr Manning’s > prosecution begins three days after the White House co-hosted its second > “We the Geeks” conference with Google. This Thursday, Mr Obama will attend > a fundraiser at the home of Vinod Khosla, one of Silicon Valley’s most > celebrated venture capital geeks. And in the coming months the White House > will be pushing for Congress to pass immigration reform – alongside a > newly-created lobby group founded by Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive > of Facebook. This controversial outfit is called Forward (Fwd.us), which > was also the slogan of Mr Obama’s 2012 campaign. > > One of the geekocracy’s main characteristics is a serene faith in its own > good motives. It is not hard to imagine how much greater the US left’s > outrage would be over the drone programme were it carried out by George W. > Bush or Mitt Romney. When Mr Obama asks Americans to trust that he > evaluates every target on his “kill list”, most acquiesce. That pass is > also extended to Mr Obama’s “signature strikes”, which select targets by > probability based on often sketchy information. But there is a world of > difference between zapping a known target and taking an educated guess. It > is hard to avoid the suspicion that Mr Obama’s reputation for being a nerd > shields him from tougher criticism. Call it geek exceptionalism. To his > credit, Mr Obama conveyed last month that he shares much of this disquiet > in a lapidary address on counterterrorism. > > If signature strikes – attacking suspected terrorists before they can act > – are the stuff of the film Minority Report’s “pre-crimes”, the Obama > campaign’s brilliant use of demographic data is about “pre-votes”. His data > team has aggregated more detail about individual preferences than most > voters know about themselves. Mr Obama is likely to use his database as a > bargaining tool to help secure his legacy after 2016 (whoever is the > Democratic nominee will need it to win). It is no coincidence this > resembles the growing ingenuity with which Facebook, and other social > media, cull their users’ personal information. Mr Obama’s operation was > partly designed by Silicon Valley techies. The Obama administration is also > a strong ally of Google, Facebook and others in pushing against Europe’s > moves towards far stronger data privacy rights. France’s so-called “right > to be forgotten” sparks as much derision in Washington as it does in San > Francisco. “Trust us,” say the geeks. “We have noble motives.” > > The reality is more mundane. Self-interest, rather than virtue, guides > the growing clout of these “Big Data” companies in Washington. The same is > often true of Mr Obama. Big data’s agenda is not confined to immigration > reform. Among other areas, it has a deep interest in shaping what > Washington does on privacy, online education, the school system, the > internet, corporate tax reform, cyber security and even cyber warfare. Big > data is also likely to be influential in the US-European trade partnership > talks, which start this month. Whether the sector becomes a thorn in the > side of the process remains to be seen. Either way, Americans should be > relieved someone is making the case for privacy. “I don’t say this often > but I think the Europeans are on the right side of the data protection > issue,” says Tyler Cowen, a leading libertarian economist. > > For while big data brings innovation, it also has dangerous side effects. > Culture is already pushing Americans towards “data nudism”. Such currents > will only get more acute. Before long, it will be possible to map an > individual’s genetic sequencing at an affordable price. No one will be > forced to attach their genetic record to online dating profiles. But > potential mates may assume that anyone who chooses not to is concealing a > genetic disorder. > > America’s middle classes are already in thrall to their often capricious > credit scores – a determination that is notoriously hard to correct. In a > world where the average home will have hundreds of sensors, and where > ubiquitous tracking systems can intimately map an individual’s habits, the > right to privacy could become an economic tool of survival. Already, US > employers often demand a credit score, a drugs test and fingerprinting from > many kinds of applicant. In the new digital world, the right to expunge > past blemishes may turn into a rumbling civil struggle. > > Should such futurology bother Mr Obama? Yes. A century ago, Theodore > Roosevelt pushed back against the power of the rail barons and oil titans – > the great technological disrupters of his day. Mr Obama should pay closer > heed to history. And he should become wary of geeks bearing gifts. > > edward.luce at ft.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jun 4 22:11:33 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:11:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Obama's faith in geek elites, who have your secrets In-Reply-To: <13f1140c7e9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <51ACCEC6.4080308@bluewin.ch> <1C0C725A-ADEF-4695-989D-897E697ABC9D@gmail.com> <13f1140c7e9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51AE9E55.3070104@ciroap.org> On 05/06/13 06:13, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Just how much do you know them, riaz, to forward this generalization? > > Blindly recycling articles that are couched in over broad generalities > doesn't quite facilitate any discussion or any change from whatever > current state that you find unacceptable > I found it useful, thanks Riaz for forwarding it. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 Wed Jun 5 02:56:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 08:56:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Obama's faith in geek elites, who have your secrets In-Reply-To: <51AE9E55.3070104@ciroap.org> References: <51ACCEC6.4080308@bluewin.ch> <1C0C725A-ADEF-4695-989D-897E697ABC9D@gmail.com> <13f1140c7e9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51AE9E55.3070104@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <13f13151336.27a2.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Chacun a son gout. Sorry for not including accented characters, I haven't figured out this tablet keyboard yet. --srs On June 5, 2013 4:11:33 AM Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 05/06/13 06:13, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > Just how much do you know them, riaz, to forward this generalization? > > > > Blindly recycling articles that are couched in over broad generalities > > doesn't quite facilitate any discussion or any change from whatever > > current state that you find unacceptable > > > > I found it useful, thanks Riaz for forwarding it. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Jun 5 08:08:00 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 08:08:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CSTD WGEC draft questionnaire References: <047301ce6155$7196b660$54c42320$@ch> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Peter Major > Subject: FW: CSTD WGEC draft questionnaire > Date: 4 June 2013 14:58:03 EDT > To: WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG > Reply-To: UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > Dear Participants, > > Please find attached the draft questionnaire we agreed on during our meeting > on 30-31 May 2013. I added as first question related to stakeholder group as > was suggested by the group. I kindly ask you to provide your comments on the > questionnaire related to format and editorial aspects, but not on > substantial points. In order to proceed the way we anticipated in our > meeting please send your comments until the 15 June 2013 to the mailing > list, the Secretariat and to me. > > During the meeting you also agreed that on practical aspects of > accreditation of observers and modalities of participation the Chair would > decide after consultation with the Secretariat. I seek your view and > suggestion on this issue as well as on handling responses to the > questionnaire. > > > Best regards, > > Peter -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Questionnaire.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41215 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Wed Jun 5 08:43:06 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:43:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights Council: New LaRue report on government surveillance online Message-ID: Dear Governance list peeps, For those of you who didn't see it, the HRC received a new report from special rapporteur LaRue this week: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression "... analyses the implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. While considering the impact of significant technological advances in communications, the report underlines the urgent need to further study new modalities of surveillance and to revise national laws regulating these practices in line with human rights standards." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 08:56:32 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 00:56:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights Council: New LaRue report on government surveillance online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Nick, for scooping this, great to know On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Governance list peeps, > > For those of you who didn't see it, the HRC received a new report from > special rapporteur LaRue this week: > > Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the > right to freedom of opinion and expression > > "... analyses the implications of States’ surveillance of communications > on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion > and expression. While considering the impact of significant technological > advances in communications, the report underlines the urgent need to > further study new modalities of surveillance and to revise national laws regulating > these practices in line with human rights standards." > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 10:50:36 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 02:50:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 Message-ID: Dear All, Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Objection to the Inclusion of Digital Rights Management with Comments.doc Type: application/msword Size: 36352 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 11:09:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 03:09:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] Message-ID: Dear All, Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to choose from. Thank you. 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 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amessinoukossi at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 11:17:47 2013 From: amessinoukossi at gmail.com (Kossi Amessinou) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:17:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, We can not destroy the use of innovation among young people in developing countries by the standard introduction of further restrictions in the environment of the web and mobile web. I am confident that the initiative is not aimed at a targeted restriction friends that can give this interpretation. For that reasons, i suggest the W3C to revise its copy. 2013/6/5 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Dear All, > > Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first > version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in > contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of > the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM > to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This > is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly > explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able > to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would > be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to > this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > > Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement > Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the > attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective > in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies > if the attached document is inherently messy. > > What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst > there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key > issues for your deliberation would be:- > > - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > > Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I > have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course > mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments > on the revised statement. > > *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across > the planet. > > > We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an > open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to > shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability > and lock in legacy business models. > > > Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to > enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing > resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse > content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with > serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the > resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers > communities. > > For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support > for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments > in this regard. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- AMESSINOU Kossi Ingénieur des TIC ICT Engineer Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 skype: amessinou @amessinou @bigf Que Dieu vous bénisse Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 11:42:15 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 11:42:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?New_book_in_French=3A_=22Nains_sans_g?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E9ants_Architecture_d=E9centralis=E9e_et_services_Interne?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?t=22?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Francesca Musiani Date: Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM Subject: [berkmanfriends] New book in French: "Nains sans géants Architecture décentralisée et services Internet" To: Berkman Friends Dear Berkfriends, For the French readers among you, today's release of my book may be of interest. Waiting for the English version... :) http://www.pressesdesmines.com/nains-sans-geants.html Kind regards, Francesca The cover blurb roughly translates as: Dwarfs Without Giants: Decentralized Network Architectures and Internet-based Services Francesca Musiani With a Preface by Geoffrey C. Bowker Decentralization is central to the genesis of the Internet, whose primary objective was indeed to enable communication between heterogeneous and remote machines, without mandatory transit points. Today, concentrationmodels dominate, around a handful of macro-actors - *giants* equipped withextensiveserver farms, managingthe most part of Internet traffic . However, the original principle has not been entirely abandoned, and in all areas of application, developers explore decentralized alternatives. These * dwarfs *go on to form search engines, social networks, storage spaces that allocate resources and tasks equally between members of the network. This book explores decentralized approaches to Internet services, and investigates the organizational forms they propose: it shows how a network that distributes the responsibility of its operation to the edges, and organizes according to a non-hierarchical or hybrid model, may develop in the highly-constrained contemporary Internet. The operation of such systems raises questions of market organization, technical efficiency, economic sustainability, but also of privacy protection and regulation of personal information. As Geoffrey Bowker argues in his introduction, this volume ultimately suggests that we need to approach the study of Internet governance in new ways, and highlights how, to understand this key socio-technical issue of our time, we need to analyze possible alternatives to the current modes of operation of the "network of networks". In a detailed and informed manner, this is precisely what "Dwarfs without giants" achieves. -- Francesca Musiani, PhD 2012-13 Yahoo! Fellow in Residence Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service Georgetown University 1316 36th Street NW Washington, DC 20057-1025 CSI, MINES ParisTech | ANR ADAM project Berkman Center for Internet and Society ESN-IAMCR | GigaNet Personal website | Twitter ---------- -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -- *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 are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list. Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless otherwise noted. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 11:56:55 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 11:56:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: fyi, via bestbit's list http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance/ OPERATIONALIZING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE June 5, 2013 · by itu4u · in Daniel Cavalcanti , Internet , WTPF-13 [image: wtpf-13-blog] The World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) provided a unique opportunity to put Internet-related public policy issues firmly on the international agenda, particularly the very present issue of the participation of governments as relevant stakeholders in Internet Governance. Brazil is a country that fully embraces the multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance. Our National Internet Steering Committee is a vibrant organization, as indeed highlighted in the Secretary-General’s Report to the WTPF, which includes a reference to Brazil’s ten “Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet”. Nonetheless, at the international level, our view is that we still need to achieve full engagement of governments in the decision making process on Internet Governance. The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory role in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement in the decision making process. Recent events have indicated that even long standing advice provided by governments on certain issues has had little impact on the actual decisions relating to matters of their direct interest. Regretfully, attempts to deal with this fact have suffered from the low level of participation of the majority of governments in existing international Internet Governance fora. In this regard Brazil presented at the WTPF an opinion that points to the fact that we must together address two key issues: operationalizing the role of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance, and the need for capacity building on these issues in developing countries, particularly in the least developed countries, with the support of the ITU. Brazil´s draft opinion entitled “Operationalizing the role of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance” stems from one previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG), which had resulted from the joint work of the drafting group led by Brazil, with the participation of a diverse group of experts from several countries. During the course of the WTPF, Brazil conducted further extensive consultations with all interested parties, including Member States, sector members and civil society entities present at the event. As a result of a genuine effort to reflect the inputs received, a revised version of the draft opinion was presented, which we expected could have been endorsed. The draft opinion received widespread support, including statements from Member States in all ITU regions, as seen during the plenary sessions. Despite this fact, in the end the opinion did not achieve consensus at the WTPF. Nonetheless, we did receive very positive feedback as to the importance of the issues that were raised, and a willingness to engage in further discussions, having Brazil as the focal point. The final report by the Chairman of the WTPF indicates, as a way forward, that these discussions could take place at the ITU Council Working Group on Internet-related public policy issues. Subsequently the output of deliberations would be forwarded to the ITU Council for further consideration. Hopefully this would lead to the inclusion of the issues in the preparatory process for the upcoming World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-14) and the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14) . Brazil also welcomes the broadening of the discussion on these issues to forums such as the GAC, the CSTD, ECOSOC and the IGF. Interestingly, as the WTPF drew to a close with a clear message from the ITU membership and a way forward proposed by the leadership of the Union, there were indications that in the near future these very same issues will also be on the agendas of those other forums. Ensuring a meaningful role for governments and engaging them in the decision making process is in the interest of all those who aspire to a truly multistakeholder international Internet Governance. * [image: cavalcanti]By Daniel B. Cavalcanti* *Daniel B. Cavalcanti is an Engineer and career professional with the Brazilian Government, currently a senior Policy Advisor at the National Telecommunications Agency – Anatel. Over the last decade his work has focused on broadband policy and Internet related issues.* -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 12:24:19 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:24:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've commented (twice now actually). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > > fyi, via bestbit's list > > > > > http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance/ > > OPERATIONALIZING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE > > June 5, 2013 · by itu4u · in Daniel Cavalcanti, Internet, WTPF-13 > > The World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) provided a unique > opportunity to put Internet-related public policy issues firmly on the > international agenda, particularly the very present issue of the > participation of governments as relevant stakeholders in Internet > Governance. > > Brazil is a country that fully embraces the multistakeholder approach to > Internet Governance. Our National Internet Steering Committee is a vibrant > organization, as indeed highlighted in the Secretary-General’s Report to the > WTPF, which includes a reference to Brazil’s ten “Principles for the > Governance and Use of the Internet”. Nonetheless, at the international > level, our view is that we still need to achieve full engagement of > governments in the decision making process on Internet Governance. > > The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory role > in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement in the > decision making process. Recent events have indicated that even long > standing advice provided by governments on certain issues has had little > impact on the actual decisions relating to matters of their direct interest. > Regretfully, attempts to deal with this fact have suffered from the low > level of participation of the majority of governments in existing > international Internet Governance fora. > > In this regard Brazil presented at the WTPF an opinion that points to the > fact that we must together address two key issues: operationalizing the role > of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance, and > the need for capacity building on these issues in developing countries, > particularly in the least developed countries, with the support of the ITU. > > Brazil´s draft opinion entitled “Operationalizing the role of government > in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance” stems from one > previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG), which had resulted > from the joint work of the drafting group led by Brazil, with the > participation of a diverse group of experts from several countries. > > During the course of the WTPF, Brazil conducted further extensive > consultations with all interested parties, including Member States, sector > members and civil society entities present at the event. As a result of a > genuine effort to reflect the inputs received, a revised version of the > draft opinion was presented, which we expected could have been endorsed. > > The draft opinion received widespread support, including statements from > Member States in all ITU regions, as seen during the plenary sessions. > Despite this fact, in the end the opinion did not achieve consensus at the > WTPF. Nonetheless, we did receive very positive feedback as to the > importance of the issues that were raised, and a willingness to engage in > further discussions, having Brazil as the focal point. > > The final report by the Chairman of the WTPF indicates, as a way forward, > that these discussions could take place at the ITU Council Working Group on > Internet-related public policy issues. Subsequently the output of > deliberations would be forwarded to the ITU Council for further > consideration. Hopefully this would lead to the inclusion of the issues in > the preparatory process for the upcoming World Telecommunication Development > Conference (WTDC-14) and the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14). > > Brazil also welcomes the broadening of the discussion on these issues to > forums such as the GAC, the CSTD, ECOSOC and the IGF. Interestingly, as the > WTPF drew to a close with a clear message from the ITU membership and a way > forward proposed by the leadership of the Union, there were indications that > in the near future these very same issues will also be on the agendas of > those other forums. Ensuring a meaningful role for governments and engaging > them in the decision making process is in the interest of all those who > aspire to a truly multistakeholder international Internet Governance. > > > By Daniel B. Cavalcanti > > Daniel B. Cavalcanti is an Engineer and career professional with the > Brazilian Government, currently a senior Policy Advisor at the National > Telecommunications Agency – Anatel. Over the last decade his work has > focused on broadband policy and Internet related issues. > > > > -- > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 5 12:32:56 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:32:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I > have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course > mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments > on the revised statement. Online now at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jun 5 12:40:10 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 01:40:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Could we please continue to use email to track comments. Has worked very well 'til now. Thank you. Adam On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I >> have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course >> mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >> on the revised statement. > > Online now at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 12:44:28 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Could we please continue to use email to track comments. Has worked > very well 'til now. I agree. I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. If we are going to use a "workspace" let's make it an editable wiki. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Wed Jun 5 12:57:16 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:57:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: > I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. OTT? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 13:00:44 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:00:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: > >> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. > > > OTT? Over The Top. It reads like a bad teenage polemic. "kill innovation" (demonstrably false) , "serious violation of human rights" (seriously), "destroy interoperability" (also demonstrably false), etc. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jun 5 13:05:57 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 02:05:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: How about: Delete paragraphs one and two. Then: The cs igc supports the eff statement https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 [will] HAS THE POTENTIAL TO [kill] STIFFLE innovation and we [strongly] object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. [We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5.] (repetition) We [would also like to reiterate that we] fully endorse the arguments raised [within the objection [1] raised] by the EFF IN THEIR STATEMENT "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg END If inside square brackets delete, if caps it's new text (except HTML and WG and DRM Adam On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: > >> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. > > > OTT? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 13:11:09 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:11:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: Adam's formulation works for me....with the caveat that "stifle" only has one F ;-) On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > How about: > > Delete paragraphs one and two. Then: > > The cs igc supports the eff statement > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > [will] HAS THE POTENTIAL TO [kill] STIFFLE innovation and we > [strongly] object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) > in HTML5. > > [We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5.] (repetition) > We [would also like to reiterate that we] fully endorse the arguments > raised [within the objection [1] raised] by the EFF IN THEIR STATEMENT > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > END > > If inside square brackets delete, if caps it's new text (except HTML > and WG and DRM > > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: >> >>> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. >> >> >> OTT? >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 5 13:15:40 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 03:15:40 +1000 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: havent read this closely as I am travelling but I have to agree with McTim. The sentiment is good but language is unfortunate. instead of "kill innovation", maybe "create difficulties for innovation" instead of "destroy interoperability", maybe "have a detrimental effect on interoperability" maybe drop human rights altogether and just refer to "serious difficulties in the intellectual property area" (and perhaps elaborate on why a standard could be used in a world of great confusion as regards patents, patentability and copyright law to limit creativity and create unfortunate precedents). Ian -----Original Message----- From: McTim Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 3:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: > >> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. > > > OTT? Over The Top. It reads like a bad teenage polemic. "kill innovation" (demonstrably false) , "serious violation of human rights" (seriously), "destroy interoperability" (also demonstrably false), etc. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 5 13:16:58 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 03:16:58 +1000 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: or Adam's words (our postings crossed) -----Original Message----- From: McTim Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 3:11 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Adam Peake Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 Adam's formulation works for me....with the caveat that "stifle" only has one F ;-) On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > How about: > > Delete paragraphs one and two. Then: > > The cs igc supports the eff statement > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > [will] HAS THE POTENTIAL TO [kill] STIFFLE innovation and we > [strongly] object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) > in HTML5. > > [We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5.] (repetition) > We [would also like to reiterate that we] fully endorse the arguments > raised [within the objection [1] raised] by the EFF IN THEIR STATEMENT > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > END > > If inside square brackets delete, if caps it's new text (except HTML > and WG and DRM > > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: >> >>> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. >> >> >> OTT? >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 13:29:20 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:29:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just watched the 7 minutes interview that is available. More issues there, then in the post... On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:24 PM, McTim wrote: > I've commented (twice now actually). > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > > > > > fyi, via bestbit's list > > > > > > > > > > > http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance/ > > > > OPERATIONALIZING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE > > > > June 5, 2013 · by itu4u · in Daniel Cavalcanti, Internet, WTPF-13 > > > > The World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) provided a > unique > > opportunity to put Internet-related public policy issues firmly on the > > international agenda, particularly the very present issue of the > > participation of governments as relevant stakeholders in Internet > > Governance. > > > > Brazil is a country that fully embraces the multistakeholder approach to > > Internet Governance. Our National Internet Steering Committee is a > vibrant > > organization, as indeed highlighted in the Secretary-General’s Report to > the > > WTPF, which includes a reference to Brazil’s ten “Principles for the > > Governance and Use of the Internet”. Nonetheless, at the international > > level, our view is that we still need to achieve full engagement of > > governments in the decision making process on Internet Governance. > > > > The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory role > > in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement in the > > decision making process. Recent events have indicated that even long > > standing advice provided by governments on certain issues has had little > > impact on the actual decisions relating to matters of their direct > interest. > > Regretfully, attempts to deal with this fact have suffered from the low > > level of participation of the majority of governments in existing > > international Internet Governance fora. > > > > In this regard Brazil presented at the WTPF an opinion that points to the > > fact that we must together address two key issues: operationalizing the > role > > of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance, > and > > the need for capacity building on these issues in developing countries, > > particularly in the least developed countries, with the support of the > ITU. > > > > Brazil´s draft opinion entitled “Operationalizing the role of government > > in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance” stems from one > > previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG), which had > resulted > > from the joint work of the drafting group led by Brazil, with the > > participation of a diverse group of experts from several countries. > > > > During the course of the WTPF, Brazil conducted further extensive > > consultations with all interested parties, including Member States, > sector > > members and civil society entities present at the event. As a result of a > > genuine effort to reflect the inputs received, a revised version of the > > draft opinion was presented, which we expected could have been endorsed. > > > > The draft opinion received widespread support, including statements from > > Member States in all ITU regions, as seen during the plenary sessions. > > Despite this fact, in the end the opinion did not achieve consensus at > the > > WTPF. Nonetheless, we did receive very positive feedback as to the > > importance of the issues that were raised, and a willingness to engage in > > further discussions, having Brazil as the focal point. > > > > The final report by the Chairman of the WTPF indicates, as a way forward, > > that these discussions could take place at the ITU Council Working Group > on > > Internet-related public policy issues. Subsequently the output of > > deliberations would be forwarded to the ITU Council for further > > consideration. Hopefully this would lead to the inclusion of the issues > in > > the preparatory process for the upcoming World Telecommunication > Development > > Conference (WTDC-14) and the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14). > > > > Brazil also welcomes the broadening of the discussion on these issues to > > forums such as the GAC, the CSTD, ECOSOC and the IGF. Interestingly, as > the > > WTPF drew to a close with a clear message from the ITU membership and a > way > > forward proposed by the leadership of the Union, there were indications > that > > in the near future these very same issues will also be on the agendas of > > those other forums. Ensuring a meaningful role for governments and > engaging > > them in the decision making process is in the interest of all those who > > aspire to a truly multistakeholder international Internet Governance. > > > > > > By Daniel B. Cavalcanti > > > > Daniel B. Cavalcanti is an Engineer and career professional with the > > Brazilian Government, currently a senior Policy Advisor at the National > > Telecommunications Agency – Anatel. Over the last decade his work has > > focused on broadband policy and Internet related issues. > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- *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 Wed Jun 5 14:55:56 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 06:55:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Could we please continue to use email to track comments. Has worked > very well 'til now. > > Thank you. > > Adam > > We can keep the email for discussions etc but comments on draft text should really go to the statement workspace as there is dedicated space for it and it allows people to easily see, specific comments on statements rather than waiting for the coordinators to compile into a document because sometimes comments are made on aspects which could be misinterpreted or misdirected. The workspace allows for dedicated bandwidth. > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > >> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > phrases. I > >> have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course > >> mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > >> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track > comments > >> on the revised statement. > > > > Online now at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 > > > > 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 > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 15:30:38 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:30:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first > version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in > contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of > the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM > to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This > is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly > explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able > to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would > be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to > this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > > Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement > Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the > attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective > in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies > if the attached document is inherently messy. > > What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst > there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key > issues for your deliberation would be:- > > - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > > Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I > have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course > mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments > on the revised statement. > > *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across > the planet. > > > We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an > open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to > shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability > and lock in legacy business models. > > > Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to > enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing > resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse > content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with > serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the > resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers > communities. > > For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support > for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments > in this regard. > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 22:14:51 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:44:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I nominate Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro for a repeat term. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in > standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to > nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So > that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to > choose from. > > Thank you. > > 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 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jun 6 00:18:50 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:18:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130606041850.GC10180@tarvainen.info> I like Adam's formulation. -- Tapani Tarvainen On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 02:05:57AM +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > How about: > > Delete paragraphs one and two. Then: > > The cs igc supports the eff statement > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > [will] HAS THE POTENTIAL TO [kill] STIFFLE innovation and we > [strongly] object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) > in HTML5. > > [We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5.] (repetition) > We [would also like to reiterate that we] fully endorse the arguments > raised [within the objection [1] raised] by the EFF IN THEIR STATEMENT > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > END > > If inside square brackets delete, if caps it's new text (except HTML > and WG and DRM > > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: > > > >> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. > > > > > > OTT? > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jun 6 04:52:48 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 17:52:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sala, To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? A cleaned up version of a short statement: The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. Adam On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > > Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. > > What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- > What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. > Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. > > > > We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. > > > > Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. > > For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 6 07:12:56 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:12:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> I support sending this statement. avri On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Sala, > > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. > > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. Indeed, lets just support them. > > Adam > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 6 07:24:10 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:24:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> References: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> Message-ID: <13f193abf1e.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I agree with a short and non pontificating note of support such as the below --srs (htc one x) On 6 June 2013 1:12:56 PM Avri Doria wrote: > I support sending this statement. > > > avri > > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Hi Sala, > > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site > for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you > can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people > bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > > as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I find > that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. > > > > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports > the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has > the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > > > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks > for itself. See no need to add more than above. > > Indeed, lets just support them. > > > > Adam > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From exigencygh at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 07:51:43 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 04:51:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, name's Simon, just joined and hoping to learn and contribute a great deal. I'm counting on you to point me in the right direction. Thanks On Jun 5, 2013 4:40 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Could we please continue to use email to track comments. Has worked > very well 'til now. > > Thank you. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > >> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > phrases. I > >> have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course > >> mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > >> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track > comments > >> on the revised statement. > > > > Online now at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Jun 6 08:00:38 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:00:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> References: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> +1 On Jun 06 07:12, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > I support sending this statement. > > > avri > > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Hi Sala, > > > > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > > as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. > > > > > > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > > > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > > > > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. > > Indeed, lets just support them. > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- 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 soekpe at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 08:19:39 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:19:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I strongly support the simplification of Adams Peake's submission. Brief and straight to the point. Thank you. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jun 6, 2013 9:53 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 08:58:28 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 08:58:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> References: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > I support sending this statement. +1 > > > avri > > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Hi Sala, >> >> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > > as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. +1 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jun 6 09:35:14 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:35:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 02:50:36 on Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >discussion. What I don't understand (to use a bricks-and-mortar analogy, and I've never believed that "online" was fundamentally not part of the real world) is why having to pay $50 [which I have] to see a performance of Starlight Express on Broadway means that my local brass band[1] is somehow prevented from giving a performance in the park on a Sunday afternoon, completely free of charge. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_band#British-style -- 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 andersj at elon.edu Thu Jun 6 10:08:46 2013 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:08:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: +1 -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director, Imagining the Internet Center www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University Twitter: @JannaQ https://twitter.com/JANNAQ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson On 6/6/13 8:00 AM, "Tapani Tarvainen" wrote: >+1 > >On Jun 06 07:12, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > >> I support sending this statement. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > Hi Sala, >> > >> > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >>Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how >>many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I >>find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. >> >> >> > >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> >> > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>Foundation (EFF) >> >> > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >> >> > >> > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >> Indeed, lets just support them. >> >> >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >-- >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 nomagean at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 6 10:17:05 2013 From: nomagean at yahoo.co.uk (nomsa muswai) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:17:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> +1 Have been following this discussion and i agree with the exact content on the letter .   Best Regards Nomsa Muswai ________________________________ From: Janna Anderson To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 16:08 Subject: Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 +1 -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director, Imagining the Internet Center www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University Twitter:  @JannaQ  https://twitter.com/JANNAQ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson On 6/6/13 8:00 AM, "Tapani Tarvainen" wrote: >+1 > >On Jun 06 07:12, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > >> I support sending this statement. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > Hi Sala, >> > >> > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>site for such a small statement is a pain.  In my opinion, anyway. >>Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how >>many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I >>find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. >> >> >> > >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> >> > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>Foundation (EFF) >> >> > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >> >> > >> > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>speaks for itself.  See no need to add more than above. >> >> Indeed, lets just support them. >> >> >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >-- >Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 10:42:46 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:42:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) White House Defends Its Wiretapping Of Millions Of US Citizens Message-ID: <51B09FE6.6090206@gmail.com> [Anti-American or anti-Democratic? China makes no bones about its political system, but this is done in the name of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... secret courts, war crime whistle-blowers without the audacity of hope... Paging Franz Kafka, Frans Kafka please pick up the white telephones located in the lobby... ] White House Defends Its Wiretapping Of Millions Of US Citizens Tyler Durden's picture Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/06/2013 09:44 -0400 Blink and you have likely missed Obama's latest Watergate moment, this time following the disclosure that the White House has instructed the NSA to collect millions of daily phone records from Verizon (and likely all other carriers). What is surprising to us is that this is even news. We reported on /just this/ in March of 2012 with "We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" - Big Brother Goes Live September 2013 " and then again in April 2012 "NSA Whistleblower Speaks Live: "The Government Is Lying To You " using an NSA whistleblower as a source. Still, no matter the distribution platform, it is a welcome development for the majority of the population to know that the same Stazi tactics so loathed for decades in the fringes of the "evil empire" are now a daily occurrence under the "most transparent administration in history." This is especially true in the aftermath of the recent media scandals involving the soon to be former Attorney General. So what was the latest largely regurgitated news? Overnight te Guardian's Glenn Greenwald reports that the "NSA is collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily" following a "top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama." Some more from the Guardian : The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries. The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk -- regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing. The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19. Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered. The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers. *No it won't*. Because those who care, have known about this for a long, long time. Everyone else... well, they have their soaring 401(k)s to comfort them, sprinkled in with a little class warfare to keep things "fair", and of course Dancing with the Stars. Finally, the White House was quick to explain why living in a crypto-fascist, totalitarian state is the New Normal: *it's for your own good, *you see. >From Reuters : *The Obama administration on Thursday acknowledged that it is collecting a massive amount of telephone records from at least one carrier, reopening the debate over privacy even as it defended the practice as necessary to protect Americans against attack. * The admission comes after the Guardian newspaper published a secret court order related to the records of millions of Verizon Communications customers on its website on Wednesday. A senior administration official said the court order pertains only to data such as a telephone number or the length of a call, and not the subscribers' identities or the content of the telephone calls. Such information is "a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States," the official said, speaking on the condition of not being named. "It allows counter terrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States," the official added. The revelation raises fresh concerns about President Barack Obama's handling of privacy and free speech issues. His administration is already under fire for searching Associated Press journalists' calling records and the emails of a Fox television reporter as part of its inquiries into leaked government information. It was not immediately clear whether the practice extends to other carriers. It does. But what is most stunning in all of this is that the benevolent rulers who are here to "help us" have not made selling of any security illegal and punishable by death. Yet. Average: 4.733335 Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (15 votes) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jun 6 11:08:08 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:08:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> ,<1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of nomsa muswai [nomagean at yahoo.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 +1 Have been following this discussion and i agree with the exact content on the letter . Best Regards Nomsa Muswai ________________________________ From: Janna Anderson To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 16:08 Subject: Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 +1 -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director, Imagining the Internet Center www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University Twitter: @JannaQ https://twitter.com/JANNAQ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson On 6/6/13 8:00 AM, "Tapani Tarvainen" > wrote: >+1 > >On Jun 06 07:12, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > >> I support sending this statement. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > Hi Sala, >> > >> > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >>Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how >>many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I >>find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. >> >> >> > >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> >> > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>Foundation (EFF) >> >> > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >> >> > >> > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >> Indeed, lets just support them. >> >> >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >-- >Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 6 11:26:39 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:26:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> ,<1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51B0AA2F.3050205@eff.org> +1 and many thanks all On 6/6/13 11:08 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > +1 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of nomsa muswai > [nomagean at yahoo.co.uk] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 > > +1 > > Have been following this discussion and i agree with the exact content > on the letter . > Best Regards > Nomsa Muswai > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Janna Anderson > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > *Sent:* Thursday, 6 June 2013, 16:08 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 > > +1 > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director, Imagining the Internet Center > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > Associate Professor > School of Communications > Elon University > > > Twitter: @JannaQ https://twitter.com/JANNAQ > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson > > > > > > On 6/6/13 8:00 AM, "Tapani Tarvainen" > wrote: > > >+1 > > > >On Jun 06 07:12, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org ) wrote: > > > >> I support sending this statement. > >> > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Sala, > >> > > >> > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate > >>site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. > >>Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ > page, how > >>many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > >> > >> as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I > >>find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >>Foundation (EFF) > >> > >> > > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> > > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and > >>speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. > >> > >> Indeed, lets just support them. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Adam > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > >-- > >Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jun 6 11:30:18 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:30:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> ,<1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: After carefully considering all of the points made on this mailing list, via personal research, and by talking to people whom I consider experts on this I endorse the statement below. Kerry Brown >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> >> > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>Foundation (EFF) >> >> > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 6 11:59:07 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:59:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Kerry Brown wrote: > After carefully considering all of the points made on this mailing list, > via personal research, and by talking to people whom I consider experts on > this I endorse the statement below.**** > > ** ** > > Kerry Brown > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >>Foundation (EFF) > >> > >> > > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> > > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >> > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *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 ecrire at catherine-roy.net Thu Jun 6 13:14:02 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:14:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> Hi, While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Sala, > > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site > for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps > you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many > people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > Foundation (EFF) > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion > of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and > speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. > > Adam > > > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >> comments and suggest text. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised >> the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the >> sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed >> reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual >> property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect >> innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is >> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if >> we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's >> new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what >> the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course >> interested in what the IGC has to say. >> >> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the >> Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture >> every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement >> Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to >> comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached >> document is inherently messy. >> >> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that >> whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend >> time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >> >> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in >> HTML 5? >> >> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the >> mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon >> as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and >> this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >> >> *_Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection_* >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse >> and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic >> Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the >> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and >> block access to content for people across the planet. >> >> >> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat >> to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal >> would be to shut out open source developers and competition, >> destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >> >> >> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >> sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, >> health and diverse content. In such regions, access to >> information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, >> but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >> >> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to >> the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with >> the EFF's arguments in this regard. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jun 7 01:54:00 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 14:54:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Catherine, Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? Best, Adam On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > Hi, > > While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Sala, >> >> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>> >>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. >>> >>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. >>> >>> >>> >>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>> >>> >>> >>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>> >>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Jun 7 04:48:45 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:48:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) White House Defends Its Wiretapping Of Millions Of US Citizens In-Reply-To: <51B09FE6.6090206@gmail.com> References: <51B09FE6.6090206@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, This insidious spying business started in 2002. It was retroactively legalized with strong support by both Reps and Dems. The US press seems pretending it's news. This is just a classical way of installing a totalitarian regime, step by step, lie by lie. Louis - - - On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [Anti-American or anti-Democratic? China makes no bones about its > political system, but this is done in the name of life, liberty and the > pursuit of happiness... secret courts, war crime whistle-blowers without > the audacity of hope... Paging Franz Kafka, Frans Kafka please pick up the > white telephones located in the lobby... ] > White House Defends Its Wiretapping Of Millions Of US Citizens > [image: Tyler Durden's picture] > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/06/2013 09:44 -0400 > > > > Blink and you have likely missed Obama's latest Watergate moment, this > time following the disclosure that the White House has instructed the NSA > to collect millions of daily phone records from Verizon (and likely all > other carriers). What is surprising to us is that this is even news. We > reported on *just this* in March of 2012 with “We Are This Far From A > Turnkey Totalitarian State" - Big Brother Goes Live September 2013" > and then again in April 2012 "NSA Whistleblower Speaks Live: "The > Government Is Lying To You" > using an NSA whistleblower as a source. Still, no matter the distribution > platform, it is a welcome development for the majority of the population to > know that the same Stazi tactics so loathed for decades in the fringes of > the "evil empire" are now a daily occurrence under the "most transparent > administration in history." This is especially true in the aftermath of the > recent media scandals involving the soon to be former Attorney General. > > So what was the latest largely regurgitated news? Overnight te Guardian's > Glenn Greenwald reports that the "NSA is collecting phone records of > millions of Verizon customers daily" following a "top secret court order > requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic > surveillance under Obama." > > Some more from the Guardian > : > > The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone > records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest > telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. > > > > The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires > Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all > telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and > other countries. > > > > The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration > the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected > indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of > any wrongdoing. > > > > The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the > order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to > obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19. > > > > Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a > call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique > identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the > conversation itself are not covered. > > > > The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over > the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers. > > *No it won't*. Because those who care, have known about this for a long, > long time. Everyone else... well, they have their soaring 401(k)s to > comfort them, sprinkled in with a little class warfare to keep things > "fair", and of course Dancing with the Stars. > > Finally, the White House was quick to explain why living in a > crypto-fascist, totalitarian state is the New Normal: *it's for your own > good, *you see. > > From Reuters > : > > *The Obama administration on Thursday acknowledged that it is > collecting a massive amount of telephone records from at least one carrier, > reopening the debate over privacy even as it defended the practice as > necessary to protect Americans against attack. * > > > > The admission comes after the Guardian newspaper published a secret court > order related to the records of millions of Verizon Communications > customers on its website on Wednesday. > > > > A senior administration official said the court order pertains only to > data such as a telephone number or the length of a call, and not the > subscribers' identities or the content of the telephone calls. > > > > Such information is "a critical tool in protecting the nation from > terrorist threats to the United States," the official said, speaking on the > condition of not being named. > > > > "It allows counter terrorism personnel to discover whether known or > suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be > engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the > United States," the official added. > > > > The revelation raises fresh concerns about President Barack Obama's > handling of privacy and free speech issues. His administration is already > under fire for searching Associated Press journalists' calling records and > the emails of a Fox television reporter as part of its inquiries into > leaked government information. > > > > It was not immediately clear whether the practice extends to other > carriers. > > It does. But what is most stunning in all of this is that the benevolent > rulers who are here to "help us" have not made selling of any security > illegal and punishable by death. Yet. > Average: > 4.733335 > Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (15 votes) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 06:26:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:26:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <050501ce6369$722f6e30$568e4a90$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dfarber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:22 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html?ref=global-home& _r=0 U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad WASHINGTON - The federal government has been secretly collecting information on foreigners overseas for nearly six years from the nation's largest Internet companies like Google, Facebook and, most recently, Apple, in search of national security threats, the director of national intelligence confirmed Thursday night. The confirmation of the classified program came just hours after government officials acknowledged a separate seven-year effort to sweep up records of telephone calls inside the United States. Together, the unfolding revelations opened a window into the growth of government surveillance that began under the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has clearly been embraced and even expanded under the Obama administration. Government officials defended the two surveillance initiatives as authorized under law, known to Congress and necessary to guard the country against terrorist threats. But an array of civil liberties advocates and libertarian conservatives said the disclosures provided the most detailed confirmation yet of what has been long suspected about what the critics call an alarming and ever-widening surveillance state. The Internet surveillance program collects data from online providers including e-mail, chat services, videos, photos, stored data, file transfers, video conferencing and log-ins, according to classified documents obtained and posted by The Washington Post and then The Guardian on Thursday afternoon. In confirming its existence, officials said that the program, called Prism, is authorized under a foreign intelligence law that was recently renewed by Congress, and maintained that it minimizes the collection and retention of information "incidentally acquired" about Americans and permanent residents. Several of the Internet companies said they did not allow the government open-ended access to their servers but complied with specific lawful requests for information. "It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States," James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement, describing the law underlying the program. "Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats." The Prism program grew out of the National Security Agency's desire several years ago to begin addressing the agency's need to keep up with the explosive growth of social media, according to people familiar with the matter. The dual revelations, in rapid succession, also suggested that someone with access to high-level intelligence secrets had decided to unveil them in the midst of furor over leak investigations. Both were reported by The Guardian, while The Post, relying upon the same presentation, almost simultaneously reported the Internet company tapping. The Post said a disenchanted intelligence official provided it with the documents to expose government overreach. Before the disclosure of the Internet company surveillance program on Thursday, the White House and Congressional leaders defended the phone program, saying it was legal and necessary to protect national security. Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, told reporters aboard Air Force One that the kind of surveillance at issue "has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terror threats as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States." He added: "The president welcomes a discussion of the trade-offs between security and civil liberties." The Guardian and The Post posted several slides from the 41-page presentation about the Internet program, listing the companies involved - which included Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL, Skype and YouTube - and the dates they joined the program, as well as listing the types of information collected under the program. The reports came as President Obama was traveling to meet President Xi Jinping of China at an estate in Southern California, a meeting intended to address among other things complaints about Chinese cyberattacks and spying. Now that conversation will take place amid discussion of America's own vast surveillance operations. Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt, Jonathan Weisman and James Risen from Washington; Brian X. Chen from New York; Vindu Goel, Claire Cain Miller, Nicole Perlroth, Somini Sengupta and Michael S. Schmidt from San Francisco; and Nick Wingfield from Seattle. But while the administration and lawmakers who supported the telephone records program emphasized that all three branches of government had signed off on it, Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union denounced the surveillance as an infringement of fundamental individual liberties, no matter how many parts of the government approved of it. "A pox on all the three houses of government," Mr. Romero said. "On Congress, for legislating such powers, on the FISA court for being such a paper tiger and rubber stamp, and on the Obama administration for not being true to its values." Others raised concerns about whether the telephone program was effective. Word of the program emerged when The Guardian posted an April order from the secret foreign intelligence court directing a subsidiary of Verizon Communications to give the N.S.A. "on an ongoing daily basis" until July logs of communications "between the United States and abroad" or "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls." On Thursday, Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Democrat and top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, said the court order appeared to be a routine reauthorization as part of a broader program that lawmakers have long known about and supported. "As far as I know, this is an exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years," Ms. Feinstein said, adding that it was carried out by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "under the business records section of the Patriot Act." "Therefore, it is lawful," she said. "It has been briefed to Congress." While refusing to confirm or to directly comment on the reported court order, Verizon, in an internal e-mail to employees, defended its release of calling information to the N.S.A. Randy Milch, an executive vice president and general counsel, wrote that "the law authorizes the federal courts to order a company to provide information in certain circumstances, and if Verizon were to receive such an order, we would be required to comply." Sprint and AT&T have also received demands for data from national security officials, according to people familiar with the requests. Those companies as well as T-Mobile and CenturyLink declined to say Thursday whether they were or had been under a similar court order. Lawmakers and administration officials who support the phone program defended it in part by noting that it was only for "metadata" - like logs of calls sent and received - and did not involve listening in on people's conversations. The Internet company program appeared to involve eavesdropping on the contents of communications of foreigners. The senior administration official said its legal basis was the so-called FISA Amendments Act, a 2008 law that allows the government to obtain an order from a national security court to conduct blanket surveillance of foreigners abroad without individualized warrants even if the interception takes place on American soil. The law, which Congress reauthorized in late 2012, is controversial in part because Americans' e-mails and phone calls can be swept into the database without an individualized court order when they communicate with people overseas. While the newspapers portrayed the classified documents as indicating that the N.S.A. obtained direct access to the companies' servers, several of the companies - including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple - denied that the government could do so. Instead, the companies have negotiated with the government technical means to provide specific data in response to court orders, according to people briefed on the arrangements. "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data," the company said in a statement. "We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'backdoor' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'backdoor' for the government to access private user data." Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt, Jonathan Weisman and James Risen from Washington; Brian X. Chen from New York; Vindu Goel, Claire Cain Miller, Nicole Perlroth, Somini Sengupta and Michael S. Schmidt from San Francisco; and Nick Wingfield from Seattle. While murky questions remained about the Internet company program, the confirmation of the calling log program solved a mystery that has puzzled national security legal policy observers in Washington for years: why a handful of Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee were raising cryptic alarms about Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the law Congress enacted after the 9/11 attacks. Section 215 made it easier for the government to obtain a secret order for business records, so long as they were deemed relevant to a national security investigation. Section 215 is among the sections of the Patriot Act that have periodically come up for renewal. Since around 2009, a handful of Democratic senators briefed on the program - including Ron Wyden of Oregon - have sought to tighten that standard to require a specific nexus to terrorism before someone's records could be obtained, while warning that the statute was being interpreted in an alarming way that they could not detail because it was classified. On Thursday, Mr. Wyden confirmed that the program is what he and others have been expressing concern about. He said he hoped the disclosure would "force a real debate" about whether such "sweeping, dragnet surveillance" should be permitted - or is even effective. But just as efforts by Mr. Wyden and fellow skeptics, including Senators Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Mark Udall of Colorado, to tighten standards on whose communications logs could be obtained under the Patriot Act have repeatedly failed, their criticism was engulfed in a clamor of broad, bipartisan support for the program. "If we don't do it," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, "we're crazy." And Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, claimed in a news conference that the program helped stop a significant domestic terrorist attack in the United States in the last few years. He gave no details. It has long been known that one aspect of the Bush administration's program of surveillance without court oversight involved vacuuming up communications metadata and mining the database to identify associates - called a "community of interest" - of a suspected terrorist. In December 2005, The New York Times revealed the existence of elements of that program, setting off a debate about civil liberties and the rule of law. But in early 2007, Alberto R. Gonzales, then the attorney general, announced that after months of extensive negotiation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had approved "innovative" and "complex" orders bringing the surveillance programs under its authority. Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt, Jonathan Weisman and James Risen from Washington; Brian X. Chen from New York; Vindu Goel, Claire Cain Miller, Nicole Perlroth, Somini Sengupta and Michael S. Schmidt from San Francisco; and Nick Wingfield from Seattle. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130607042216:5A2ACA16-CF4B-11E2-B107-84DD527AC225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 07:08:57 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 07:08:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <050501ce6369$722f6e30$568e4a90$@gmail.com> References: <050501ce6369$722f6e30$568e4a90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: More on the same issue from the BBC this morning http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22809541 (Please advise whether the URL is sufficient, or if I should post the text as well) Deirdre On 7 June 2013 06:26, michael gurstein wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: dfarber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:22 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com > > .............. -- “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 exigencygh at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 07:13:32 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 04:13:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: <050501ce6369$722f6e30$568e4a90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Interesting. On Jun 7, 2013 11:10 AM, "Deirdre Williams" wrote: > More on the same issue from the BBC this morning > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22809541 > (Please advise whether the URL is sufficient, or if I should post the text > as well) > Deirdre > > > On 7 June 2013 06:26, michael gurstein wrote: > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dfarber [mailto:dave at farber.net] >> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:22 AM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com >> >> .............. > > -- > “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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 07:47:37 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:47:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] FYI: Master in Diplomacy with IG specialisation Message-ID: For those who might be interested, or know someone who might be... thanks! 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* ** ** ** Is this email not displaying correctly? View this email in your browser Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with an Internet Governance Specialisation ------------------------------ *Accelerate your career with this online diplomacy programme, offered by DiploFoundation and the University of Malta.* ------------------------------ This unique programme gives current and future Internet policymakers a solid foundation in diplomatic skills and techniques, necessary to engage effectively in international global policy processes. ’The IG route in the MA Contemporary Diplomacy Programme has enabled me to situate the focus of my work on Internet Governance in Africa in a space that is directly relevant to the mandate of the NEPAD Agency. I have found immense value in being able to bring together the two worlds of Internet Governance and Diplomacy.’ *Towela Nyirenda-Jere Programme Manager, e-Africa Programme, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency* How the programme works - First, you attend a 10-day residential workshop in Malta. Here you will get a clear overview of the programme, meet your classmates and some of the faculty members, and develop skills in critical areas of diplomacy including negotiation, protocol, and language. - Next, you participate in five online courses, each lasting ten weeks. You will attend three or four courses in IG-related topics and choose the remaining courses from our wide range of diplomacy topics. Online study involves reading and discussing lecture texts with course lecturers and fellow participants, completing learning activities and assignments, and joining online meetings. Once you have completed these courses, you are eligible to receive a Postgraduate Diploma in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. - If you continue to the Master's degree, the final part of the programme is writing your dissertation, focussed on an IG-related topic, under the personal guidance of a faculty member. On successful completion, you will receive a Master’s degree in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. - The IG courses you attended – as well as other courses – will be listed in a detailed transcript which you can order on completion of the programme to supplement your diploma or degree in Contemporary Diplomacy. *Faculty members* include practising and retired diplomats, academics, and specialists in IG with both theoretical expertise and practical experience in the field. *Online learning* takes place in small groups and is highly interactive, drawing on the experience and knowledge of participants as well as lecturers. Course work is flexible: within a weekly schedule, you decide when and where to study. The programme requires 5–7 hours of study per week. Interested in a traditional diplomacy programme? You can also register without the Internet governance (IG) specialisation - see the programme websitefor more details. The Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy is recognised worldwide and has European postgraduate accreditation through the Faculty of Arts at the University of Malta. Graduates of Diplo's IG courses hold key positions in national and international bodies working in Internet Governance, including the Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group. *Who should apply* Diplomats, government officials, and other individuals interested in or responsible for IG, cybersecurity and other Internet-related policy issues; business and civil society activists involved in multistakeholder IG processes; postgraduate students, journalists, staff of international and non-governmental organisations wishing to take an active part in Internet policy-making. *How to apply* The next programme begins on 29 January 2014. *Apply by 1 October 2013*. For further details and application instructions, please visit http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD or contact admissions at diplomacy.edu *Get a head start* Enroll in an online course during autumn 2013 for academic credit towards the 2014 Master in Contemporary Diplomacy. Available courses include: - *Cybersecurity* - *Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy* - *Development Diplomacy* - *Language and Diplomacy* - *Economic Diplomacy* This is an excellent way to get a head start on your Master’s studies. - You can try out one of our courses before committing to the full programme. - You complete one online course before the programme begins, leaving just four to complete after registering for the Master’s programme. - The University of Malta will screen and accept your application early, making the Master’s programme application process quicker and easier. - Tuition fees paid for the online course will be deducted from your Master’s programme fees. The application deadline for University of Malta accredited online courses beginning in October 2013 is *5 August 2013*. For more information, visit www.diplomacy.edu/courses or contact admissions at diplomacy.edu Like us on FaceBook Follow us on Twitter Our website Our network *Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* ------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From betunat at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 08:24:28 2013 From: betunat at gmail.com (Bethel Terefe) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:24:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] FYI: Master in Diplomacy with IG specialisation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dear Ginger, Thank you for the information. I went to the web page and checked it out in there it is only stated about partial scholarship. Do you have any information on the availability of full scholarship. Regards, Bethel On 6/7/13, Ginger Paque wrote: > For those who might be interested, or know someone who might be... thanks! > 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* > ** > ** > > > > ** > Is this email not displaying correctly? View this email in your > browser > Master > in Contemporary Diplomacy with an Internet Governance Specialisation > ------------------------------ > *Accelerate your career with this online diplomacy programme, > offered by DiploFoundation and the University of Malta.* > ------------------------------ > This unique programme gives current and future Internet policymakers > a solid foundation in diplomatic skills and techniques, necessary to engage > effectively in international global policy processes. ’The IG route > in the MA Contemporary Diplomacy Programme has enabled me to situate the > focus of my work on Internet Governance in Africa in a space that is > directly relevant to the mandate of the NEPAD Agency. I have found immense > value in being able to bring together the two worlds of Internet Governance > and Diplomacy.’ > > *Towela Nyirenda-Jere > Programme Manager, e-Africa Programme, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating > Agency* > How the programme works > > - First, you attend a 10-day residential workshop in Malta. Here you > will get a clear overview of the programme, meet your classmates and > some > of the faculty members, and develop skills in critical areas of > diplomacy > including negotiation, protocol, and language. > - Next, you participate in five online courses, each lasting ten weeks. > You will attend three or four courses in IG-related topics and choose > the > remaining courses from our wide range of diplomacy > topics. > Online study involves reading and discussing lecture texts with course > lecturers and fellow participants, completing learning activities and > assignments, and joining online meetings. Once you have completed these > courses, you are eligible to receive a Postgraduate Diploma in > Contemporary > Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. > - If you continue to the Master's degree, the final part of the > programme is writing your dissertation, focussed on an IG-related topic, > under the personal guidance of a faculty member. On successful > completion, > you will receive a Master’s degree in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by > the > University of Malta. > - The IG courses you attended – as well as other courses – will be > listed in a detailed transcript which you can order on completion of the > programme to supplement your diploma or degree in Contemporary > Diplomacy. > > *Faculty > members* > include > practising and retired diplomats, academics, and specialists in IG with > both theoretical expertise and practical experience in the field. > > *Online learning* takes place in small groups and is highly interactive, > drawing on the experience and knowledge of participants as well as > lecturers. Course work is flexible: within a weekly schedule, you decide > when and where to study. The programme requires 5–7 hours of study per > week. > Interested in a traditional diplomacy programme? > You can also register without the Internet governance (IG) specialisation - > see the > programme > websitefor > more details. > The Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy is recognised worldwide and > has European postgraduate accreditation through the Faculty of Arts at the > University of Malta. Graduates of Diplo's IG > courses > hold > key positions in national and international bodies working in Internet > Governance, including the Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder > Advisory Group. > > *Who should apply* Diplomats, government officials, and other individuals > interested in or responsible for IG, cybersecurity and other > Internet-related policy issues; business and civil society activists > involved in multistakeholder IG processes; postgraduate students, > journalists, staff of international and non-governmental organisations > wishing to take an active part in Internet policy-making. > > *How to apply* The next programme begins on 29 January 2014. *Apply by 1 > October 2013*. > For further details and application instructions, please visit > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > or > contact admissions at diplomacy.edu > > *Get a head start* Enroll in an online course during autumn 2013 for > academic credit towards the 2014 Master in Contemporary Diplomacy. > Available courses include: > > - *Cybersecurity* > - *Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy* > - *Development Diplomacy* > - *Language and Diplomacy* > - *Economic Diplomacy* > > This is an excellent way to get a head start on your Master’s studies. > > - You can try out one of our courses before committing to the full > programme. > - You complete one online course before the programme begins, leaving > just four to complete after registering for the Master’s programme. > - The University of Malta will screen and accept your application early, > making the Master’s programme application process quicker and easier. > - Tuition fees paid for the online course will be deducted from your > Master’s programme fees. > > The application deadline for University of Malta accredited online courses > beginning in October 2013 is *5 August 2013*. For more information, visit > www.diplomacy.edu/courses > or > contact admissions at diplomacy.edu > > > > > Like > us on > FaceBook > > Follow > us on > Twitter > > Our > website > > Our > network > *Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* > ------------------------------ > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 09:22:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:22:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk Message-ID: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> So where exactly does this leave the current/recent "Hands off the Internet" campaign as spearheaded by the USG, Google, and various of their supporters and cooperants in Civil Society and elsewhere? I'm personally ready to join any campaign which recognizes these realities as below and militates for "everyone's" hands off the Internet and/or the putting in place of effective global measures to ensure appropriate oversight, appeal, transparency, accountability etc.etc. M From: DAVID FARBER [mailto:dfarber at me.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 7:10 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-2%20Special%20trail:Network%20front%20-%20special%20trail:Position1 NSA taps in to internet giants' systems to mine user data, secret files reveal Prism A slide depicting the top-secret PRISM program The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian. The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says. The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers. Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program. In a statement, Google said: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data." Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a programme. "If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge," one said. An Apple spokesman said it had "never heard" of PRISM. The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012. Prism The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US. It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants. Disclosure of the PRISM program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers. The participation of the internet companies in PRISM will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata. Some of the world's largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan "Your privacy is our priority" – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007. It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online. Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks. Prism The extent and nature of the data collected from each company varies. Companies are legally obliged to comply with requests for users' communications under US law, but the PRISM program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers. The NSA document notes the operations have "assistance of communications providers in the US". The revelation also supports concerns raised by several US senators during the renewal of the Fisa Amendments Act in December 2012, who warned about the scale of surveillance the law might enable, and shortcomings in the safeguards it introduces. When the FAA was first enacted, defenders of the statute argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA's inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the PRISM program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies' servers. A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more. PRISM slide crop The document is recent, dating to April 2013. Such a leak is extremely rare in the history of the NSA, which prides itself on maintaining a high level of secrecy. The PRISM program allows the NSA, the world's largest surveillance organisation, to obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders. With this program, the NSA is able to reach directly into the servers of the participating companies and obtain both stored communications as well as perform real-time collection on targeted users. The presentation claims PRISM was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a "home-field advantage" due to housing much of the internet's architecture. But the presentation claimed "Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage" because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US. "Fisa was broken because it provided privacy protections to people who were not entitled to them," the presentation claimed. "It took a Fisa court order to collect on foreigners overseas who were communicating with other foreigners overseas simply because the government was collecting off a wire in the United States . There were too many email accounts to be practical to seek Fisas for all." The new measures introduced in the FAA redefines "electronic surveillance" to exclude anyone "reasonably believed" to be outside the USA – a technical change which reduces the bar to initiating surveillance. The act also gives the director of national intelligence and the attorney general power to permit obtaining intelligence information, and indemnifies internet companies against any actions arising as a result of co-operating with authorities' requests. In short, where previously the NSA needed individual authorisations, and confirmation that all parties were outside the USA, they now need only reasonable suspicion that one of the parties was outside the country at the time of the records were collected by the NSA. The document also shows the FBI acts as an intermediary between other agencies and the tech companies, and stresses its reliance on the participation of US internet firms, claiming "access is 100% dependent on ISP provisioning". In the document, the NSA hails the PRISM program as "one of the most valuable, unique and productive accesses for NSA". It boasts of what it calls "strong growth" in its use of the PRISM program to obtain communications. The document highlights the number of obtained communications increased in 2012 by 248% for Skype – leading the notes to remark there was "exponential growth in Skype reporting; looks like the word is getting out about our capability against Skype". There was also a 131% increase in requests for Facebook data, and 63% for Google. The NSA document indicates that it is planning to add Dropbox as a PRISM provider. The agency also seeks, in its words, to "expand collection services from existing providers". The revelations echo fears raised on the Senate floor last year during the expedited debate on the renewal of the FAA powers which underpin the PRISM program, which occurred just days before the act expired. Senator Christopher Coons of Delaware specifically warned that the secrecy surrounding the various surveillance programs meant there was no way to know if safeguards within the act were working. "The problem is: we here in the Senate and the citizens we represent don't know how well any of these safeguards actually work," he said. "The law doesn't forbid purely domestic information from being collected. We know that at least one Fisa court has ruled that the surveillance program violated the law. Why? Those who know can't say and average Americans can't know." Other senators also raised concerns. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon attempted, without success, to find out any information on how many phone calls or emails had been intercepted under the program. When the law was enacted, defenders of the FAA argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA's inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the PRISM program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies' servers. When the NSA reviews a communication it believes merits further investigation, it issues what it calls a "report". According to the NSA, "over 2,000 PRISM-based reports" are now issued every month. There were 24,005 in 2012, a 27% increase on the previous year. In total, more than 77,000 intelligence reports have cited the PRISM program. Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's Center for Democracy, that it was astonishing the NSA would even ask technology companies to grant direct access to user data. "It's shocking enough just that the NSA is asking companies to do this," he said. "The NSA is part of the military. The military has been granted unprecedented access to civilian communications. "This is unprecedented militarisation of domestic communications infrastructure. That's profoundly troubling to anyone who is concerned about that separation." Additional reporting by James Ball and Dominic Rushe Archives https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg| Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25641 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 9908 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43872 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 35867 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 813 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 858 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 09:31:03 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:31:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:22 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > So where exactly does this leave the current/recent "Hands off the > Internet" campaign as spearheaded by the USG, Google, and various of their > supporters and cooperants in Civil Society and elsewhere? > Doesn't this news (yet to be clarified BTW, see link below) mean that we should push for more hands-offyness, rather than less? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/internet-companies-deny-prism_n_3399841.html?ref=topbar **** > > ** ** > > I'm personally ready to join any campaign which recognizes these realities > as below and militates for "everyone's" hands off the Internet and/or the > putting in place of effective global measures to ensure appropriate > oversight, appeal, transparency, accountability etc.etc. > am for the former, not the latter. -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 09:42:11 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 08:42:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] FYI: Master in Diplomacy with IG specialisation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Bethel, Diplo is searching for donors who can support full or partial scholarships for participants from LCDs and small island states (Diplo's priorities). We also provide support for candidates' search for scholarship funding (e.g. letters, advice) from regional and global prospective partners that you might find, from business, academia or government. If you are interested, the first step is to pass the entrance process for the University of Malta. Feel free to email me privately (VirginiaP @ diplomacy.edu) if you would like to discuss the process in more detail. Good luck! Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 7 June 2013 07:24, Bethel Terefe wrote: > dear Ginger, > > Thank you for the information. I went to the web page and checked it > out in there it is only stated about partial scholarship. Do you have > any information on the availability of full scholarship. > > Regards, > Bethel > > On 6/7/13, Ginger Paque wrote: > > For those who might be interested, or know someone who might be... > thanks! > > 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* > > ** > > ** > > > > > > > > ** > > Is this email not displaying correctly? View this email in your > > browser< > http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=d5f0e5ab3d&e=330e500107 > > > > Master > > in Contemporary Diplomacy with an Internet Governance Specialisation > > ------------------------------ > > *Accelerate your career with this online diplomacy programme, > > offered by DiploFoundation and the University of Malta.* > > ------------------------------ > > This unique programme gives current and future Internet > policymakers > > a solid foundation in diplomatic skills and techniques, necessary to > engage > > effectively in international global policy processes. ’The IG > route > > in the MA Contemporary Diplomacy Programme has enabled me to situate the > > focus of my work on Internet Governance in Africa in a space that is > > directly relevant to the mandate of the NEPAD Agency. I have found > immense > > value in being able to bring together the two worlds of Internet > Governance > > and Diplomacy.’ > > > > *Towela Nyirenda-Jere > > Programme Manager, e-Africa Programme, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating > > Agency* > > How the programme works > > > > - First, you attend a 10-day residential workshop in Malta. Here you > > will get a clear overview of the programme, meet your classmates and > > some > > of the faculty members, and develop skills in critical areas of > > diplomacy > > including negotiation, protocol, and language. > > - Next, you participate in five online courses, each lasting ten > weeks. > > You will attend three or four courses in IG-related topics and choose > > the > > remaining courses from our wide range of diplomacy > > topics< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=db6efaa15c&e=330e500107 > >. > > Online study involves reading and discussing lecture texts with course > > lecturers and fellow participants, completing learning activities and > > assignments, and joining online meetings. Once you have completed > these > > courses, you are eligible to receive a Postgraduate Diploma in > > Contemporary > > Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. > > - If you continue to the Master's degree, the final part of the > > programme is writing your dissertation, focussed on an IG-related > topic, > > under the personal guidance of a faculty member. On successful > > completion, > > you will receive a Master’s degree in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded > by > > the > > University of Malta. > > - The IG courses you attended – as well as other courses – will be > > listed in a detailed transcript which you can order on completion of > the > > programme to supplement your diploma or degree in Contemporary > > Diplomacy. > > > > *Faculty > > members*< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=891889c658&e=330e500107 > > > > include > > practising and retired diplomats, academics, and specialists in IG with > > both theoretical expertise and practical experience in the field. > > > > *Online learning* takes place in small groups and is highly interactive, > > drawing on the experience and knowledge of participants as well as > > lecturers. Course work is flexible: within a weekly schedule, you decide > > when and where to study. The programme requires 5–7 hours of study per > > week. > > Interested in a traditional diplomacy programme? > > You can also register without the Internet governance (IG) > specialisation - > > see the > > programme > > website< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=d08226efbf&e=330e500107 > >for > > more details. > > The Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy is recognised worldwide > and > > has European postgraduate accreditation through the Faculty of Arts at > the > > University of Malta. Graduates of Diplo's IG > > courses< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=2f52adb731&e=330e500107 > > > > hold > > key positions in national and international bodies working in Internet > > Governance, including the Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder > > Advisory Group. > > > > *Who should apply* Diplomats, government officials, and other individuals > > interested in or responsible for IG, cybersecurity and other > > Internet-related policy issues; business and civil society activists > > involved in multistakeholder IG processes; postgraduate students, > > journalists, staff of international and non-governmental organisations > > wishing to take an active part in Internet policy-making. > > > > *How to apply* The next programme begins on 29 January 2014. *Apply by 1 > > October 2013*. > > For further details and application instructions, please visit > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=eeb173e680&e=330e500107 > > > > or > > contact admissions at diplomacy.edu > > > > *Get a head start* Enroll in an online course during autumn 2013 for > > academic credit towards the 2014 Master in Contemporary Diplomacy. > > Available courses include: > > > > - *Cybersecurity* > > - *Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy* > > - *Development Diplomacy* > > - *Language and Diplomacy* > > - *Economic Diplomacy* > > > > This is an excellent way to get a head start on your Master’s studies. > > > > - You can try out one of our courses before committing to the full > > programme. > > - You complete one online course before the programme begins, leaving > > just four to complete after registering for the Master’s programme. > > - The University of Malta will screen and accept your application > early, > > making the Master’s programme application process quicker and easier. > > - Tuition fees paid for the online course will be deducted from your > > Master’s programme fees. > > > > The application deadline for University of Malta accredited online > courses > > beginning in October 2013 is *5 August 2013*. For more information, visit > > www.diplomacy.edu/courses< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=ac17a4250c&e=330e500107 > > > > or > > contact admissions at diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > < > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=a8b30c7058&e=330e500107 > > > > Like > > us on > > FaceBook< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=cedc909532&e=330e500107 > > > > < > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=311319af69&e=330e500107 > > > > Follow > > us on > > Twitter< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=fded0e9332&e=330e500107 > > > > < > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=218b62a7e5&e=330e500107 > > > > Our > > website< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=11bddcb68e&e=330e500107 > > > > < > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=9d9cc44146&e=330e500107 > > > > Our > > network< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=da9ba6db07&e=330e500107 > > > > *Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* > > ------------------------------ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 10:02:02 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:02:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Could someone please help to clarify things for me? I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent EFF statement. The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this reference in 2 - "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML specification: - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions ) - supporting playback of protected content" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first place? Thank you Deirdre On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Catherine, > > Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > > Best, > > Adam > > > On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > > Hi, > > While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the > point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I > feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the > key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the > W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the > margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, > be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular > browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with > shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from > content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium > content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I > am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, > I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users > rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net > > > > On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Sala, > > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site > for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you > can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people > bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports > the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) < > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has > the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> > > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks > for itself. See no need to add more than above. > > Adam > > > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your > comments and suggest text. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first >> version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >> >> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >> if the attached document is inherently messy. >> >> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >> issues for your deliberation would be:- >> >> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >> >> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. >> I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course >> mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >> on the revised statement. >> >> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >> the planet. >> >> >> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to >> shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability >> and lock in legacy business models. >> >> >> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >> communities. >> >> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >> arguments in this regard. >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 10:08:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:08:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> McTim, As I was very careful to point out in my initial blogposts on this re: the WCIT, the issue is not "hands off the Internet" but rather whose hands off (or on) and for what purposes. There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too important and pervasive for there not to be--and anyone surprised by the revelations from the Guardian article isn't living in the real world. The question is whether there are structures of accountability, responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable for everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of economic, political or technical authority/power. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:31 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:22 AM, michael gurstein wrote: So where exactly does this leave the current/recent "Hands off the Internet" campaign as spearheaded by the USG, Google, and various of their supporters and cooperants in Civil Society and elsewhere? Doesn't this news (yet to be clarified BTW, see link below) mean that we should push for more hands-offyness, rather than less? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/internet-companies-deny-prism_n_339 9841.html?ref=topbar I'm personally ready to join any campaign which recognizes these realities as below and militates for "everyone's" hands off the Internet and/or the putting in place of effective global measures to ensure appropriate oversight, appeal, transparency, accountability etc.etc. am for the former, not the latter. -- 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 10:10:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:10:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Well put Sent from my iPhone On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. > My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent EFF statement. > The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this reference in 2 - > "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML specification: > > additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: > facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) > supporting playback of protected content" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first place? > Thank you > Deirdre > > > > On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Catherine, >> >> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Hi Sala, >>>> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > “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 ecrire at catherine-roy.net Fri Jun 7 10:18:03 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:18:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <51B1EB9B.7050908@catherine-roy.net> Hi Adam, It certainly does cover my concerns. I would quote to you the relevant passages but that would mean pratically quoting half of the formal objection. For example: "The inclusion of this deliverable, and any deliverable where ultimate control over user agent functionality is technically and legally removed from the user, will (1) exclude an entire class of platforms and user agents from full conformance with the HTML5 standard and the W3C's vision of the Open Web; (2) encourage the reduction of the amount of content accessible to users via the Web; and (3) create serious future impediments to W3C's core mission of promoting interoperability, voluntary standards compliance, and access for all." - 2nd para "[...] We hope we can bring our experience working with standards groups, researchers, legislators, and users to help illuminate best practices for conveniently providing support for commercial content while still preserving user rights." - 3rd para "Engineering usage control on modern devices requires both preventing the user from controlling some of the functionality of her own device, and giving control over that functionality to a third party. Many developers view this as both technically problematic (users should normally have full access to the hardware and software of their own devices), and damaging to user security (with remote usage control, third parties may extract, delete or tamper data on the user's computer without permission; see, e.g. the Sony Rootkit scandal). Usage controls also provide an disturbing set of incentives to withhold the highest level of administrative control over a device from its owner, forcing individuals to cede power over their devices to others and eroding the meaning and scope of ownership." - 9th para Etc., etc. For more examples, please read : https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg Hope this helps, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 07/06/2013 1:54 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Catherine, > > Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > > Best, > > Adam > > > On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to >> the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) >> unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, >> which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole >> matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list >> mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if >> required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of >> the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that >> shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting >> out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content >> (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, >> while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing >> exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the >> statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, >> "equipment". >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Hi Sala, >>> >>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>> site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >>> Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, >>> how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read >>> the list? >>> >>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>> Foundation (EFF) >>> >>> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the >>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>> >>> >>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add >>>> your comments and suggest text. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised >>>> the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the >>>> sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed >>>> reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual >>>> property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect >>>> innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be >>>> thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common >>>> ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read >>>> Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see >>>> his report of what the world is saying in relation to this >>>> conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>> >>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that >>>> deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted >>>> on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to >>>> capture every comment in the attached document. I find that >>>> Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing >>>> people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the >>>> attached document is inherently messy. >>>> >>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that >>>> whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend >>>> time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>> >>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in >>>> HTML 5? >>>> >>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the >>>> mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon >>>> as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us >>>> and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>> >>>> *_Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection_* >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to >>>> the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We >>>> endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft >>>> proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle >>>> Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>> the planet. >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious >>>> threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the >>>> proposal would be to shut out open source developers and >>>> competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy >>>> business models. >>>> >>>> >>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers >>>> to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open >>>> environment of sharing resources related to agricultural >>>> practices, education, health and diverse content. In such >>>> regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious >>>> resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and >>>> the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that >>>> empowers communities. >>>> >>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to >>>> the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement >>>> with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 10:33:49 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:33:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) Message-ID: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a statement, per USA Today--the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It cannot be used to intentionally target any US citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United States." M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 10:50:38 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:50:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals Message-ID: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-fro m-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-ceb f-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html some of the slides http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-docum ents/ Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox apparently next up. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Fri Jun 7 10:56:03 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:56:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original reportage. On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Guardian: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data > > Washington Post: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html > > some of the slides > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ > > Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, > Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox > apparently next up. > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jun 7 11:02:09 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 08:02:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is quite worrisome. On Jun 7, 2013 2:51 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Guardian: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data > > Washington Post: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html > > some of the slides > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ > > Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, > Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox > apparently next up. > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 11:16:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:16:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <064201ce6391$f7f1a6a0$e7d4f3e0$@gmail.com> I may have missed it but I didn't see any denial by the head of the NSA program and presumably the party ultimately responsible for the slides. Although I did see the extremely carefully (and interestingly similarly) worded "denial statements" by the company PR reps. http://marketingland.com/google-apple-facebook-deny-nsa-prism-program-47323 M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original reportage. On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" wrote: Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-fro m-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-ceb f-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html some of the slides http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-docum ents/ Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox apparently next up. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 11:47:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:17:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B2009E.8060704@itforchange.net> On Friday 07 June 2013 08:26 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement > categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original > reportage. > Dear Nick, I agree that the fact that these companies have denied involvement may need to be highlighted. However, I'd very much appreciate that while making such a posting as above you declare your job as representing the interests of at least some of these companies. Unlike what you may assume, not every reader would know that. This is a normal tenet of public discussions. Thanks. parminder > On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" > wrote: > > Guardian: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data > > Washington Post: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html > > some of the slides > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ > > Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, > Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox > apparently next up. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 11:53:09 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:53:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, > > > > There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too > important and pervasive for there not to be I think this is a defeatist attitude that CS should not support. > The question is whether there are structures of accountability, > responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable for > everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of economic, > political or technical authority/power. > so every national gov't should be able to snoop, as long as they are accountable, responsible, transparent, etc? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From exigencygh at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:02:49 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:02:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Absolutely On Jun 7, 2013 4:00 PM, "McTim" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > McTim, > > > > > > > > > > > There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too > > important and pervasive for there not to be > > > I think this is a defeatist attitude that CS should not support. > > > > > The question is whether there are structures of accountability, > > responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable > for > > everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of > economic, > > political or technical authority/power. > > > > so every national gov't should be able to snoop, as long as they are > accountable, responsible, transparent, etc? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jun 7 12:03:44 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:03:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: ...not! On Jun 7, 2013 4:00 PM, "McTim" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > McTim, > > > > > > > > > > > There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too > > important and pervasive for there not to be > > > I think this is a defeatist attitude that CS should not support. > > > > > The question is whether there are structures of accountability, > > responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable > for > > everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of > economic, > > political or technical authority/power. > > > > so every national gov't should be able to snoop, as long as they are > accountable, responsible, transparent, etc? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Fri Jun 7 12:04:20 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:04:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: <51B2009E.8060704@itforchange.net> References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> <51B2009E.8060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3F07F11D-3405-45AC-99D9-021B5CFCC0A6@ccianet.org> Dear Parminder, I have previously disclosed that fact ad-nauseum, on this list, and quite recently as you are well aware. In this case, I'm making an observation that's not connected to my day-job; I'm watching this story unfold via reportage just like everyone else is (and, personally, am pretty horrified by what I'm reading). On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:47, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 07 June 2013 08:26 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original reportage. >> > > Dear Nick, > > I agree that the fact that these companies have denied involvement may need to be highlighted. However, I'd very much appreciate that while making such a posting as above you declare your job as representing the interests of at least some of these companies. Unlike what you may assume, not every reader would know that. This is a normal tenet of public discussions. Thanks. > > parminder > > >> On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> Guardian: >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data >> >> Washington Post: >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html >> >> some of the slides >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ >> >> Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, >> Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox >> apparently next up. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 12:06:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:06:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> That's just silly... and you know it as well or better than anyone... We already know by admission what is going on and what has been going on for at least 7 years (according to Mr. Clapper of the NSA)... We also know that anyone/country which can/will do its surveillance and to the max, that's the nature of that beast.. The challenge for us/CS and for anyone including governments, the technical community, and responsible elements in the private sector is to figure out ways of making those processes transparent and subject to the rule of law (and to create appropriate laws and governance/enforcement mechanisms as and where necessary... To not do so is to allow for the creation of a unipolar surveillance state which is, I would have thought, more or less universally repugnant. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 11:53 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, > > > > There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too > important and pervasive for there not to be I think this is a defeatist attitude that CS should not support. > The question is whether there are structures of accountability, > responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable > for everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of > economic, political or technical authority/power. > so every national gov't should be able to snoop, as long as they are accountable, responsible, transparent, etc? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:28:42 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:28:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > That's just silly... and you know it as well or better than anyone... If being an idealist is silly, then I will proudly wear that badge > > We already know by admission what is going on and what has been going on for > at least 7 years (according to Mr. Clapper of the NSA)... excellent timeline by EFF here: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline > > We also know that anyone/country which can/will do its surveillance and to > the max, that's the nature of that beast.. so we shouldn't oppose it? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:30:20 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 19:30:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] IP-Watch Brief: EU Court Backs Secrecy, Privileged Industry Access In Trade Talks In-Reply-To: <201306071618.r57GIG1Y016689@imu289.infomaniak.ch> References: <201306071618.r57GIG1Y016689@imu289.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <51B20A9C.7000301@gmail.com> [How will multi-stakeholderism deal with this? Are all civil estates equal? June 07, 2013. EU Court Backs Secrecy, Privileged Industry Access In Trade Talks Secrecy in trade negotiations and privileged access for business and trade associations does not violate EU law, according to a judgment handed in by the Court of the European Union in Luxembourg today. Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=29741&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:48:03 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:48:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Great... So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we opposing? M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 12:29 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk [MG>] ... > We also know that anyone/country which can/will do its surveillance > and to the max, that's the nature of that beast.. so we shouldn't oppose it? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jun 7 13:10:45 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Hi Deirdre. I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification which effectively represents a technology that, in combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so basically DRM). EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this > morning. > My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the > recent EFF statement. > The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft > Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant > broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to > include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The > objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a > detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to > this reference in 2 - > > "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML > specification: > > * additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support > use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, > additions for: > o facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions > ) > o supporting playback of protected content" > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > > So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to > the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which > was what we were asked about in the first place? > Thank you > Deirdre > > > > On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake > wrote: > > Hi Catherine, > > Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > > Best, > > Adam > > > On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, >> to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) >> unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' >> rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this >> whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media >> mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of >> debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for >> particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real >> problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right >> software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the >> discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend >> to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith >> and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would >> like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Hi Sala, >>> >>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a >>> separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my >>> opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit >>> vs the very large number who read the list? >>> >>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>> Foundation (EFF) >>> >>> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in >>> HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to >>> the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their >>> statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>> >>> >>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long >>> and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can >>>> add your comments and suggest text. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have >>>> revised the first version to the one below. I have >>>> highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note >>>> that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the >>>> protection of intellectual property rights through mediums >>>> like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to >>>> threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting >>>> debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by >>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are >>>> able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's >>>> new report but it would be interesting to see his report of >>>> what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am >>>> of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>> >>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that >>>> deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be >>>> hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I >>>> have tried to capture every comment in the attached >>>> document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more >>>> effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each >>>> sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is >>>> inherently messy. >>>> >>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested >>>> that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we >>>> should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation >>>> would be:- >>>> >>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management >>>> in HTML 5? >>>> >>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings >>>> and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All >>>> the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. >>>> As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will >>>> inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the >>>> revised statement. >>>> >>>> *_Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection_* >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects >>>> to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in >>>> HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged >>>> by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the >>>> draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for >>>> people across the planet. >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious >>>> threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of >>>> the proposal would be to shut out open source developers >>>> and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in >>>> legacy business models. >>>> >>>> >>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source >>>> developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an >>>> open environment of sharing resources related to >>>> agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a >>>> challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is >>>> an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >>>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>> >>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection >>>> to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our >>>> agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > “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 jstyre at jstyre.com Fri Jun 7 13:50:02 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:50:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) In-Reply-To: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> References: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01b101ce63a7$7664d150$632e73f0$@jstyre.com> Clapper made two separate statements. The first relates to Wednesday's disclosure of the FISC Order to Verizon: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/868-dni-statement-on-recent-unauthorized -disclosures-of-classified-information The second relates to yesterday's PRISM disclosures: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authoriz ed-under-section-702-of-fisa (If the links get mangled too much, just go to http://www.dni.gov/index.php and click newsroom.) -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 7:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA > National Intelligence) > > James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a statement, per USA Today- > -the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It cannot be used to intentionally target any US > citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United States." > > > M > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 14:19:58 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 14:19:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Great... > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > opposing? repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 15:14:38 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:14:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <081c01ce63b3$48175eb0$d8461c10$@gmail.com> Tks, I can see why that might be useful in the US for US folks but how is it going to impact on the US Internet surveillance outside of the US (or Internet surveillance by others on their own citizens or citizens of other countries... or surveillance by other countries of their own citizens using US information... and so on... M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:20 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Great... > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > opposing? repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jun 7 15:20:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 00:50:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: <3F07F11D-3405-45AC-99D9-021B5CFCC0A6@ccianet.org> References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> <51B2009E.8060704@itforchange.net> <3F07F11D-3405-45AC-99D9-021B5CFCC0A6@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <13f2014f215.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I agree with nick here --srs (htc one x) On 7 June 2013 9:34:20 PM Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I have previously disclosed that fact ad-nauseum, on this list, and quite > recently as you are well aware. In this case, I'm making an observation > that's not connected to my day-job; I'm watching this story unfold via > reportage just like everyone else is (and, personally, am pretty horrified > by what I'm reading). > > On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:47, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 07 June 2013 08:26 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement > categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original reportage. > >> > > Dear Nick, > > I agree that the fact that these companies have denied involvement may > need to be highlighted. However, I'd very much appreciate that while making > such a posting as above you declare your job as representing the interests > of at least some of these companies. Unlike what you may assume, not every > reader would know that. This is a normal tenet of public discussions. Thanks. > > parminder > > >> On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Guardian: > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data > >> Washington Post: > >> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html > >> some of the slides > >> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ > >> Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, > >> Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox > >> apparently next up. > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 15:50:13 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 01:20:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> On Friday 07 June 2013 11:49 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Great... >> >> So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we >> opposing? > > repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. McTim, Are you really suggesting that we write to the US gov to repeal the Patriot Act? I thought there was a view expressed on this list that US government cannot be called upon to explain itself to mere people like us.... 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 Fri Jun 7 15:57:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 01:27:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Not you perhaps. As a us citizen and through his congressman and senator mctim is entitled to ask that anything at all be repealed. Of course whether or not it will be is another story The caucus doesn't have any locus standi in this --srs (htc one x) On 8 June 2013 1:20:13 AM parminder wrote: > > On Friday 07 June 2013 11:49 PM, McTim wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Great... > >> > >> So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > >> opposing? > > > > repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. > > McTim, Are you really suggesting that we write to the US gov to repeal the > Patriot Act? I thought there was a view expressed on this list that US > government cannot be called upon to explain itself to mere people like us.... > > parminder > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 16:34:41 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:34:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Not you perhaps. As a us citizen and through his congressman and senator > mctim is entitled to ask that anything at all be repealed. Of course whether > or not it will be is another story > > The caucus doesn't have any locus standi in this Agreed, and as CS there are US folks who work in this area (EFF, EPIC, etc) who can carry the ball for CS. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Jun 7 16:49:32 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:49:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) In-Reply-To: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> References: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1AEA8F23-A8C1-4FBF-AAB2-1B8FBAC649BC@istaff.org> On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:33 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a statement, > per USA Today--the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It cannot be used to > intentionally target any US citizen, any other US person, or anyone located > within the United States." Imagine a very, very large collection of data from a variety of sources, including things that have multiple parties involved (e.g. phone calls). There is no way to allow someone to access "all records with Mr. High Risk in them" without also getting records returned that contain references to those who may be US citizens, or located in the US. If Mr. High Risk and myself chatted on the phone, then the record shows up, despite my being a US citizen. You presumably design the system such that it is very hard to query directly (i.e. "target") US citizens, but there will be lots of data returned which incidentally is all about US citizens, unless all references are redacted at the source (which would render the system useless for much of its intended terrorism risk mitigation purposes.) Even you believe that government can operate with very high integrity in the presence of such capabilities, the "incidental" spying ability of such a system when working perfectly is still rather daunting, and presume some acceptance of some very serious tradeoffs between terrorism threat detection and personal freedoms. I fully understand the value in proactive measures protecting innocent parties from harm, but am having some difficulty with imagining a system of "checks and balances" that actually would function successfully, in light of the extreme potential for abuse. /John Disclaimers: My views alone (well, I guess they're also shared with some unknown parties whether I like it or not... ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 17:40:30 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:40:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <0D83D09D-DEBF-4B5B-9344-F6E2F8950167@me.com> References: <0D83D09D-DEBF-4B5B-9344-F6E2F8950167@me.com> Message-ID: <08e401ce63c7$a87625c0$f9627140$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dfarber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 5:23 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks | World news | guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/obama-china-targets-cyber-overse as Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks Obama's move to establish a cyber warfare doctrine will heighten fears over the increasing militarization of the internet. Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters Barack Obama has ordered his senior national security and intelligence officials to draw up a list of potential overseas targets for US cyber-attacks, a top secret presidential directive obtained by the Guardian reveals. The 18-page Presidential Policy Directive 20, issued in October last year but never published, states that what it calls Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO) "can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging". It says the government will "identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power". The directive also contemplates the possible use of cyber actions inside the US, though it specifies that no such domestic operations can be conducted without the prior order of the president, except in cases of emergency. The aim of the document was "to put in place tools and a framework to enable government to make decisions" on cyber actions, a senior administration official told the Guardian. The administration published some declassified talking points from the directive in January 2013, but those did not mention the stepping up of America's offensive capability and the drawing up of a target list. Obama's move to establish a potentially aggressive cyber warfare doctrine will heighten fears over the increasing militarization of the internet. The directive's publication comes as the president plans to confront his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at a summit in California on Friday over alleged Chinese attacks on western targets. Even before the publication of the directive, Beijing had hit back against US criticism, with a senior official claiming to have "mountains of data" on American cyber-attacks he claimed were every bit as serious as those China was accused of having carried out against the US. Presidential Policy Directive 20 defines OCEO as "operations and related programs or activities . conducted by or on behalf of the United States Government, in or through cyberspace, that are intended to enable or produce cyber effects outside United States government networks." Asked about the stepping up of US offensive capabilities outlined in the directive, a senior administration official said: "Once humans develop the capacity to build boats, we build navies. Once you build airplanes, we build air forces." The official added: "As a citizen, you expect your government to plan for scenarios. We're very interested in having a discussion with our international partners about what the appropriate boundaries are." The document includes caveats and precautions stating that all US cyber operations should conform to US and international law, and that any operations "reasonably likely to result in significant consequences require specific presidential approval". The document says that agencies should consider the consequences of any cyber-action. They include the impact on intelligence-gathering; the risk of retaliation; the impact on the stability and security of the internet itself; the balance of political risks versus gains; and the establishment of unwelcome norms of international behaviour. Among the possible "significant consequences" are loss of life; responsive actions against the US; damage to property; serious adverse foreign policy or economic impacts. The US is understood to have already participated in at least one major cyber attack, the use of the Stuxnet computer worm targeted on Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuges, the legality of which has been the subject of controversy. US reports citing high-level sources within the intelligence services said the US and Israel were responsible for the worm. In the presidential directive, the criteria for offensive cyber operations in the directive is not limited to retaliatory action but vaguely framed as advancing "US national objectives around the world". The revelation that the US is preparing a specific target list for offensive cyber-action is likely to reignite previously raised concerns of security researchers and academics, several of whom have warned that large-scale cyber operations could easily escalate into full-scale military conflict. Sean Lawson, assistant professor in the department of communication at the University of Utah, argues: "When militarist cyber rhetoric results in use of offensive cyber attack it is likely that those attacks will escalate into physical, kinetic uses of force." An intelligence source with extensive knowledge of the National Security Agency's systems told the Guardian the US complaints again China were hypocritical, because America had participated in offensive cyber operations and widespread hacking - breaking into foreign computer systems to mine information. Provided anonymity to speak critically about classified practices, the source said: "We hack everyone everywhere. We like to make a distinction between us and the others. But we are in almost every country in the world." The US likes to haul China before the international court of public opinion for "doing what we do every day", the source added. One of the unclassified points released by the administration in January stated: "It is our policy that we shall undertake the least action necessary to mitigate threats and that we will prioritize network defense and law enforcement as preferred courses of action." The full classified directive repeatedly emphasizes that all cyber-operations must be conducted in accordance with US law and only as a complement to diplomatic and military options. But it also makes clear how both offensive and defensive cyber operations are central to US strategy. Under the heading "Policy Reviews and Preparation", a section marked "TS/NF" - top secret/no foreign - states: "The secretary of defense, the DNI [Director of National Intelligence], and the director of the CIA . shall prepare for approval by the president through the National Security Advisor a plan that identifies potential systems, processes and infrastructure against which the United States should establish and maintain OCEO capabilities." The deadline for the plan is six months after the approval of the directive. The directive provides that any cyber-operations "intended or likely to produce cyber effects within the United States" require the approval of the president, except in the case of an "emergency cyber action". When such an emergency arises, several departments, including the department of defense, are authorized to conduct such domestic operations without presidential approval. Obama further authorized the use of offensive cyber attacks in foreign nations without their government's consent whenever "US national interests and equities" require such nonconsensual attacks. It expressly reserves the right to use cyber tactics as part of what it calls "anticipatory action taken against imminent threats". The directive makes multiple references to the use of offensive cyber attacks by the US military. It states several times that cyber operations are to be used only in conjunction with other national tools and within the confines of law. When the directive was first reported, lawyers with the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a Freedom of Information Act request for it to be made public. The NSA, in a statement, refused to disclose the directive on the ground that it was classified. In January, the Pentagon announced a major expansion of its Cyber Command Unit, under the command of General Keith Alexander, who is also the director of the NSA. That unit is responsible for executing both offensive and defensive cyber operations. Earlier this year, the Pentagon publicly accused China for the first time of being behind attacks on the US. The Washington Post reported last month that Chinese hackers had gained access to the Pentagon's most advanced military programs. The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, identified cyber threats in general as the top national security threat. Obama officials have repeatedly cited the threat of cyber-attacks to advocate new legislation that would vest the US government with greater powers to monitor and control the internet as a means of guarding against such threats. One such bill currently pending in Congress, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa), has prompted serious concerns from privacy groups, who say that it would further erode online privacy while doing little to enhance cyber security. In a statement, Caitlin Hayden, national security council spokeswoman, said: "We have not seen the document the Guardian has obtained, as they did not share it with us. However, as we have already publicly acknowledged, last year the president signed a classified presidential directive relating to cyber operations, updating a similar directive dating back to 2004. This step is part of the administration's focus on cybersecurity as a top priority. The cyber threat has evolved, and we have new experiences to take into account. "This directive establishes principles and processes for the use of cyber operations so that cyber tools are integrated with the full array of national security tools we have at our disposal. It provides a whole-of-government approach consistent with the values that we promote domestically and internationally as we have previously articulated in the International Strategy for Cyberspace. "This directive will establish principles and processes that can enable more effective planning, development, and use of our capabilities. It enables us to be flexible, while also exercising restraint in dealing with the threats we face. It continues to be our policy that we shall undertake the least action necessary to mitigate threats and that we will prioritize network defense and law enforcement as the preferred courses of action. The procedures outlined in this directive are consistent with the US Constitution, including the president's role as commander in chief, and other applicable law and policies." ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130607172313:740D7484-CFB8-11E2-A664-EFF6DD6631B7 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 17:13:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:13:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) In-Reply-To: <1AEA8F23-A8C1-4FBF-AAB2-1B8FBAC649BC@istaff.org> References: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> <1AEA8F23-A8C1-4FBF-AAB2-1B8FBAC649BC@istaff.org> Message-ID: <08a501ce63c3$f10210a0$d30631e0$@gmail.com> But what about those of us who are not US citizens...? Do we have any rights at all given the current status quo "hands off the Internet" governance regime of the Internet or, since we aren't among the anointed, are we to be completely fair game wherever or whenever the USG chooses to put its hands into the internet for whatever purpose it sets it's mind to... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:50 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:33 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a > statement, per USA Today--the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It > cannot be used to intentionally target any US citizen, any other US > person, or anyone located within the United States." Imagine a very, very large collection of data from a variety of sources, including things that have multiple parties involved (e.g. phone calls). There is no way to allow someone to access "all records with Mr. High Risk in them" without also getting records returned that contain references to those who may be US citizens, or located in the US. If Mr. High Risk and myself chatted on the phone, then the record shows up, despite my being a US citizen. You presumably design the system such that it is very hard to query directly (i.e. "target") US citizens, but there will be lots of data returned which incidentally is all about US citizens, unless all references are redacted at the source (which would render the system useless for much of its intended terrorism risk mitigation purposes.) Even you believe that government can operate with very high integrity in the presence of such capabilities, the "incidental" spying ability of such a system when working perfectly is still rather daunting, and presume some acceptance of some very serious tradeoffs between terrorism threat detection and personal freedoms. I fully understand the value in proactive measures protecting innocent parties from harm, but am having some difficulty with imagining a system of "checks and balances" that actually would function successfully, in light of the extreme potential for abuse. /John Disclaimers: My views alone (well, I guess they're also shared with some unknown parties whether I like it or not... ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 16:54:35 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 23:54:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51B2488B.4040900@gmail.com> Which is why you want internationalisation (of your particular definition)? But why stop at US Civil Society? On 2013/06/07 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> Not you perhaps. As a us citizen and through his congressman and senator >> mctim is entitled to ask that anything at all be repealed. Of course whether >> or not it will be is another story >> >> The caucus doesn't have any locus standi in this > Agreed, and as CS there are US folks who work in this area (EFF, EPIC, > etc) who can carry the ball for CS. > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jun 7 17:48:46 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:48:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: <13f2014f215.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> <51B2009E.8060704@itforchange.net> <3F07F11D-3405-45AC-99D9-021B5CFCC0A6@ccianet.org> <13f2014f215.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: If the information is false, the companies will certainly take legal action (not just PR) to clear their names and will seek compensation for damages. Specially because they are US based, which would make it easier. Only a totally transparent judicial review could possibly settle this case. At this point, even if the US gov apologized or said the story is not true (which they did not), the doubts would still remain. Would they be truly apologizing? Would they be trying to hush up the story not to lose the whole alleged scheme? I don't see how companies could possibly make amends if they are truly clean on all that. Anyway, it is a case of major concern, I hope we as an international coalition follow it as closely and mobilize ourselves as strongly as if it was a case related to China or Iran. In fact, if the case proves to be solid, the consequences would go much beyond national surveillance. It seems Anonymous has published some related documents today: http://gizmodo.com/anonymous-just-leaked-a-trove-of-nsa-documents-511854773 Marília On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I agree with nick here > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 7 June 2013 9:34:20 PM Nick Ashton-Hart ** wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > I have previously disclosed that fact ad-nauseum, on this list, and quite > recently as you are well aware. In this case, I'm making an observation > that's not connected to my day-job; I'm watching this story unfold via > reportage just like everyone else is (and, personally, am pretty horrified > by what I'm reading). > > On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:47, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 07 June 2013 08:26 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement > categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original reportage. > > > Dear Nick, > > I agree that the fact that these companies have denied involvement may > need to be highlighted. However, I'd very much appreciate that while making > such a posting as above you declare your job as representing the interests > of at least some of these companies. Unlike what you may assume, not every > reader would know that. This is a normal tenet of public discussions. > Thanks. > > parminder > > > On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Guardian: >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data >> >> Washington Post: >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html >> >> some of the slides >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ >> >> Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, >> Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox >> apparently next up. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 18:56:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:56:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:20 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Great... > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > opposing? repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 19:41:07 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:41:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > Hi Deirdre. > > I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so > please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal > objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that > enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) > specification which effectively represents a technology that, in > combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote > determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which > is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so > basically DRM). > > EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically > argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting > playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group > deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through > its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of > Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > > It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC is > effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net > > > > On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. > My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent > EFF statement. > The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", > indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope > for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote > determination of end-user usage of content." > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection > is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed > discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this > reference in 2 - > > "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML > specification: > > - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use > cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: > - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions > ) > - supporting playback of protected content" > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > > So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the > Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was > what we were asked about in the first place? > Thank you > Deirdre > > > > On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Hi Catherine, >> >> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the >> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from >> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, >> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >> (EFF) >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < >> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> >> >> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >> comments and suggest text. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first >>> version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>> >>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>> >>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>> >>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>> >>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. >>> I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course >>> mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>> on the revised statement. >>> >>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>> the planet. >>> >>> >>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to >>> shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability >>> and lock in legacy business models. >>> >>> >>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>> communities. >>> >>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>> arguments in this regard. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Jun 7 19:45:18 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 20:45:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) In-Reply-To: <01b101ce63a7$7664d150$632e73f0$@jstyre.com> References: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> <01b101ce63a7$7664d150$632e73f0$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: Regardless of the involvement of companies, from the statement below it seems that is fair to conclude that: - The US gov thinks that it is "reassuring" to affirm that they just *intentionally* (well, if some US folks are caught on the net...) spy on non-US citizens. As a non-US citizen, that is outrageous. - US gov candidly recognizes that surveillance over these platforms is a cornerstone of their intelligence (in other words, that they will not stop it) - The mantra of "protecting the nation" from real or imaginary threats has become the justification for any policy option with extraterritorial effects. No shame, no regrets - They send a clear warning (a threat?) to those that want to dig deeper into this story: "The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans". Are they really on the top of our list of "friendly governments"? Really? Marília On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: > Clapper made two separate statements. > > The first relates to Wednesday's disclosure of the FISC Order to Verizon: > > http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/868-dni-statement-on-recent-unauthorized > -disclosures-of-classified-information > > The second relates to yesterday's PRISM disclosures: > > http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authoriz > ed-under-section-702-of-fisa > > (If the links get mangled too much, just go to > http://www.dni.gov/index.php and click newsroom.) > > -- > James S. Tyre > Law Offices of James S. Tyre > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 > Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > jstyre at jstyre.com > Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://www.eff.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > > On Behalf Of michael gurstein > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 7:34 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James > Clapper (Director of USA > > National Intelligence) > > > > James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a > statement, per USA Today- > > -the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It cannot be used to > intentionally target any US > > citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United > States." > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jstyre at jstyre.com Fri Jun 7 20:14:48 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:14:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) In-Reply-To: References: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> <01b101ce63a7$7664d150$632e73f0$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: <04e901ce63dd$365ab6c0$a3102440$@jstyre.com> I’m not defending, just clarifying that Clapper made two separate statements. Heck, my colleagues at EFF and I have been litigating with AT&T and/or NSA since 2006. Interestingly, in the two pending actions, the government just requested the respective courts to hold them in abeyance, pending review of what Clapper will declassify and how that affects our suits. -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:45 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; James S. Tyre Cc: michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) Regardless of the involvement of companies, from the statement below it seems that is fair to conclude that: - The US gov thinks that it is "reassuring" to affirm that they just *intentionally* (well, if some US folks are caught on the net...) spy on non-US citizens. As a non-US citizen, that is outrageous. - US gov candidly recognizes that surveillance over these platforms is a cornerstone of their intelligence (in other words, that they will not stop it) - The mantra of "protecting the nation" from real or imaginary threats has become the justification for any policy option with extraterritorial effects. No shame, no regrets - They send a clear warning (a threat?) to those that want to dig deeper into this story: "The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans". Are they really on the top of our list of "friendly governments"? Really? Marília On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: Clapper made two separate statements. The first relates to Wednesday's disclosure of the FISC Order to Verizon: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/868-dni-statement-on-recent-unauthorized -disclosures-of-classified-information The second relates to yesterday's PRISM disclosures: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authoriz ed-under-section-702-of-fisa (If the links get mangled too much, just go to http://www.dni.gov/index.php and click newsroom.) -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 7:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA > National Intelligence) > > James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a statement, per USA Today- > -the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It cannot be used to intentionally target any US > citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United States." > > > M > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 21:00:34 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:00:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <3C5AF278-42E1-4B67-B405-BBE0C10BC0F4@gmail.com> Dear Deirdre, Thank you for raising the excellent questions earlier. As you can imagine, life would be simpler to say, we support the EFF Objection Submissions. On the other hand there are some key issues within the EFF that the IGC may not (some would argue...."do not") have a consensus on. The dividing line at the end of the day rests on two critical issues: 1) access 2)intellectual property Both deserve protection and the question that surfaces is whether Digital Rights Management (DRM) should be extended to HTML 5 Increasingly, there are moves to infiltrate the Internet to censor whether for national security, intellectual property rights management etc. Aticle 19 of the ICCPR makes provision for these two scenarios but it is important civil society is not silent. Catherine has made points where she suggests that there are aspects not covered by merely saying, "I support the Statement". The consensus to support making a response to the EFF's objections also requires us to deliberate on the nature of our support aside. We can very easily send the simple support statement if there is consensus but as yet there are a few last things to have consensus on. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 8, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > > > On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >> Hi Deirdre. >> >> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification which effectively represents a technology that, in combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so basically DRM). >> >> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent EFF statement. >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this reference in 2 - >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML specification: >>> >>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >>> supporting playback of protected content" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first place? >>> Thank you >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Hi Catherine, >>>> >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Catherine >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Catherine Roy >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> Hi Sala, >>>>>> >>>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>>>> >>>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>>> >>>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>>>> >>>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>>>> >>>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>> Sala >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>>> Suva >>>>>>> Fiji >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 21:02:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:02:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <3C5AF278-42E1-4B67-B405-BBE0C10BC0F4@gmail.com> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <3C5AF278-42E1-4B67-B405-BBE0C10BC0F4@gmail.com> Message-ID: I forgot to add, it might be useful to hold a poll at this stage. Sent from my iPad On Jun 8, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Deirdre, > > Thank you for raising the excellent questions earlier. As you can imagine, life would be simpler to say, we support the EFF Objection Submissions. > > On the other hand there are some key issues within the EFF that the IGC may not (some would argue...."do not") have a consensus on. The dividing line at the end of the day rests on two critical issues: > > 1) access > 2)intellectual property > > Both deserve protection and the question that surfaces is whether Digital Rights Management (DRM) should be extended to HTML 5 > > Increasingly, there are moves to infiltrate the Internet to censor whether for national security, intellectual property rights management etc. Aticle 19 of the ICCPR makes provision for these two scenarios but it is important civil society is not silent. > > Catherine has made points where she suggests that there are aspects not covered by merely saying, "I support the Statement". > > The consensus to support making a response to the EFF's objections also requires us to deliberate on the nature of our support aside. We can very easily send the simple support statement if there is consensus but as yet there are a few last things to have consensus on. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> Hi Deirdre. >>> >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification which effectively represents a technology that, in combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so basically DRM). >>> >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>> >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent EFF statement. >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this reference in 2 - >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML specification: >>>> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >>>> supporting playback of protected content" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first place? >>>> Thank you >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> Hi Catherine, >>>>> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Catherine >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Catherine Roy >>>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Sala, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>>> Sala >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>>>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>>>> Suva >>>>>>>> Fiji >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 7 21:37:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:07:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B2488B.4040900@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51B2488B.4040900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13f216e6f47.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> In their individual countries and through whatever means of working towards such as a repeal certainly The question before the house was the caucus writing to the usg --srs (htc one x) On 8 June 2013 2:24:35 AM Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Which is why you want internationalisation (of your particular definition)? > > But why stop at US Civil Society? > > On 2013/06/07 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > >> Not you perhaps. As a us citizen and through his congressman and senator > >> mctim is entitled to ask that anything at all be repealed. Of course whether > >> or not it will be is another story > >> > >> The caucus doesn't have any locus standi in this > > Agreed, and as CS there are US folks who work in this area (EFF, EPIC, > > etc) who can carry the ball for CS. > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 21:42:39 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 21:42:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't see how > it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 22:20:52 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 22:20:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B2488B.4040900@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51B2488B.4040900@gmail.com> Message-ID: Riaz, It's difficult to know who you are replying to when you top post, but I think you are asking me, so here goes: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Which is why you want internationalisation (of your particular definition)? I'd like "Internationalisation" or "de-nationalisation" because then we don't have to rely on gov'ts for our Internet administration. Many of us are mistrustful of governmental intervention in Internet matters (and with good reason), and would rather remove ALL governments from any oversight role while welcoming them as multi-equal stakeholders. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 02:58:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 02:58:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> Yes, of course, but to state the obvious... While the remit of the US Congress, the US constitution etc.etc. is to govern/protect the US and its citizens, the Internet is global as are the businesses that operate on/with the Internet and particularly the global Internet giants which for various reasons are in large part US based--Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc.; and as well the interests and reach of the US based security system are equally global as evidenced by the statement from Mr. Clapper. So on the one hand we have systems of controls and accountabilities that are national and on the other hand we have actions and interests that are global. And meanwhile we have the same folks who are benefiting from this mismatch acting with all of their very considerable talents and resources to prevent the development of any means to resolve this mismatch as for example by insisting that a status quo global Internet governance regime represents the highest form of ethical and responsible behaviour on the Internet while the only real protections and controls that are available within it are those that benefit (and protect) US citizens alone. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:43 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't > see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 17:46:41 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 00:46:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks Message-ID: <51B254C1.4050700@gmail.com> Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks *Exclusive:* Top-secret directive steps up offensive cyber capabilities to 'advance US objectives around the world' . * Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill * guardian.co.uk , Friday 7 June 2013 20.06 BST * Jump to comments (371) Obama's move to establish a cyber warfare doctrine will heighten fears over the increasing militarization of the internet. Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters Barack Obama has ordered his senior national security and intelligence officials to draw up a list of potential overseas targets for US cyber-attacks, a top secret presidential directive obtained by the Guardian reveals. The 18-page Presidential Policy Directive 20, issued in October last year but never published, states that what it calls Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO) "can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging". It says the government will "identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power". The directive also contemplates the possible use of cyber actions inside the US, though it specifies that no such domestic operations can be conducted without the prior order of the president, except in cases of emergency. The aim of the document was "to put in place tools and a framework to enable government to make decisions" on cyber actions, a senior administration official told the Guardian. The administration published some declassified talking points from the directive in January 2013, but those did not mention the stepping up of America's offensive capability and the drawing up of a target list. Obama's move to establish a potentially aggressive cyber warfare doctrine will heighten fears over the increasing militarization of the internet. The directive's publication comes as the president plans to confront his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at a summit in California on Friday over alleged Chinese attacks on western targets. Even before the publication of the directive, Beijing had hit back against US criticism, with a senior official claiming to have "mountains of data" on American cyber-attacks he claimed were every bit as serious as those China was accused of having carried out against the US. Presidential Policy Directive 20 defines OCEO as "operations and related programs or activities ... conducted by or on behalf of the United States Government, in or through cyberspace, that are intended to enable or produce cyber effects outside United States government networks." Asked about the stepping up of US offensive capabilities outlined in the directive, a senior administration official said: "Once humans develop the capacity to build boats, we build navies. Once you build airplanes, we build air forces." The official added: "As a citizen, you expect your government to plan for scenarios. We're very interested in having a discussion with our international partners about what the appropriate boundaries are." The document includes caveats and precautions stating that all US cyber operations should conform to US and international law, and that any operations "reasonably likely to result in significant consequences require specific presidential approval". The document says that agencies should consider the consequences of any cyber-action. They include the impact on intelligence-gathering; the risk of retaliation; the impact on the stability and security of the internet itself; the balance of political risks versus gains; and the establishment of unwelcome norms of international behaviour. Among the possible "significant consequences" are loss of life; responsive actions against the US; damage to property; serious adverse foreign policy or economic impacts. The US is understood to have already participated in at least one major cyber attack, the use of the Stuxnet computer worm targeted on Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuges, the legality of which has been the subject of controversy. US reports citing high-level sources within the intelligence services said the US and Israel were responsible for the worm. In the presidential directive, the criteria for offensive cyber operations in the directive is not limited to retaliatory action but vaguely framed as advancing "US national objectives around the world". The revelation that the US is preparing a specific target list for offensive cyber-action is likely to reignite previously raised concerns of security researchers and academics, several of whom have warned that large-scale cyber operations could easily escalate into full-scale military conflict. Sean Lawson, assistant professor in the department of communication at the University of Utah, argues: "When militarist cyber rhetoric results in use of offensive cyber attack it is likely that those attacks will escalate into physical, kinetic uses of force." An intelligence source with extensive knowledge of the National Security Agency's systems told the Guardian the US complaints again China were hypocritical, because America had participated in offensive cyber operations and widespread hacking -- breaking into foreign computer systems to mine information. Provided anonymity to speak critically about classified practices, the source said: "We hack everyone everywhere. We like to make a distinction between us and the others. But we are in almost every country in the world." The US likes to haul China before the international court of public opinion for "doing what we do every day", the source added. One of the unclassified points released by the administration in January stated: "It is our policy that we shall undertake the least action necessary to mitigate threats and that we will prioritize network defense and law enforcement as preferred courses of action." The full classified directive repeatedly emphasizes that all cyber-operations must be conducted in accordance with US law and only as a complement to diplomatic and military options. But it also makes clear how both offensive and defensive cyber operations are central to US strategy. Under the heading "Policy Reviews and Preparation", a section marked "TS/NF" - top secret/no foreign - states: "The secretary of defense, the DNI [Director of National Intelligence], and the director of the CIA ... shall prepare for approval by the president through the National Security Advisor a plan that identifies potential systems, processes and infrastructure against which the United States should establish and maintain OCEO capabilities..." The deadline for the plan is six months after the approval of the directive. The directive provides that any cyber-operations "intended or likely to produce cyber effects within the United States" require the approval of the president, except in the case of an "emergency cyber action". When such an emergency arises, several departments, including the department of defense, are authorized to conduct such domestic operations without presidential approval. Obama further authorized the use of offensive cyber attacks in foreign nations without their government's consent whenever "US national interests and equities" require such nonconsensual attacks. It expressly reserves the right to use cyber tactics as part of what it calls "anticipatory action taken against imminent threats". The directive makes multiple references to the use of offensive cyber attacks by the US military. It states several times that cyber operations are to be used only in conjunction with other national tools and within the confines of law. When the directive was first reported, lawyers with the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a Freedom of Information Act request for it to be made public. The NSA, in a statement, refused to disclose the directive on the ground that it was classified. In January, the Pentagon announced a major expansion of its Cyber Command Unit, under the command of General Keith Alexander, who is also the director of the NSA. That unit is responsible for executing both offensive and defensive cyber operations. Earlier this year, the Pentagon publicly accused China for the first time of being behind attacks on the US. The Washington Post reported last month that Chinese hackers had gained access to the Pentagon's most advanced military programs. The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, identified cyber threats in general as the top national security threat. Obama officials have repeatedly cited the threat of cyber-attacks to advocate new legislation that would vest the US government with greater powers to monitor and control the internet as a means of guarding against such threats. One such bill currently pending in Congress, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa), has prompted serious concerns from privacy groups, who say that it would further erode online privacy while doing little to enhance cyber security. In a statement, Caitlin Hayden, national security council spokeswoman, said: "We have not seen the document the Guardian has obtained, as they did not share it with us. However, as we have already publicly acknowledged, last year the president signed a classified presidential directive relating to cyber operations, updating a similar directive dating back to 2004. This step is part of the administration's focus on cybersecurity as a top priority. The cyber threat has evolved, and we have new experiences to take into account. "This directive establishes principles and processes for the use of cyber operations so that cyber tools are integrated with the full array of national security tools we have at our disposal. It provides a whole-of-government approach consistent with the values that we promote domestically and internationally as we have previously articulated in the International Strategy for Cyberspace. "This directive will establish principles and processes that can enable more effective planning, development, and use of our capabilities. It enables us to be flexible, while also exercising restraint in dealing with the threats we face. It continues to be our policy that we shall undertake the least action necessary to mitigate threats and that we will prioritize network defense and law enforcement as the preferred courses of action. The procedures outlined in this directive are consistent with the US Constitution, including the president's role as commander in chief, and other applicable law and policies." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jun 8 07:15:45 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:15:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: "I am just doing my job, sorry!" Ah, the technical community... --c.a. On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't see how >> it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. > > Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just > stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 8 07:41:31 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:41:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something simple. I suspect we won't get consensus on more. And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). Best, Adam On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > > > On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > Hi Deirdre. > > I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification which effectively represents a technology that, in combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so basically DRM). > > EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > > It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent EFF statement. >> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this reference in 2 - >> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML specification: >> >> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >> supporting playback of protected content" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first place? >> Thank you >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Catherine, >> >> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Hi Sala, >>>> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>> >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>> >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>>> >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 8 07:50:55 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:50:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] more from UK Guardian "NSA scandal: what data is being monitored and how does it work?" Message-ID: <8D1A6B5A-81EF-48B9-88A4-45F53AAAC6A8@glocom.ac.jp> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/nsa-prism-records-surveillance-questions "Everything you need to know about data gathering from internet companies by the US National Security Agency" Interesting guide to what the Guardian staff seem to know so far. Worth reading. Expect this kind of thing will be updated. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:00:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:00:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <7A7FC254-3003-46FF-9ACB-BD3DE8A84E21@farber.net> References: <7A7FC254-3003-46FF-9ACB-BD3DE8A84E21@farber.net> Message-ID: <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 7:30 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-conced e-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?ref=global-home&_r=0&pagewanted=al l&pagewanted=print Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program SAN FRANCISCO - When government officials came to Silicon Valley to demand easier ways for the world's largest Internet companies to turn over user data as part of a secret surveillance program, the companies bristled. In the end, though, many cooperated at least a bit. Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations. They opened discussions with national security officials about developing technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data of foreign users in response to lawful government requests. And in some cases, they changed their computer systems to do so. The negotiations shed a light on how Internet companies, increasingly at the center of people's personal lives, interact with the spy agencies that look to their vast trove of information - e-mails, videos, online chats, photos and search queries - for intelligence. They illustrate how intricately the government and tech companies work together, and the depth of their behind-the-scenes transactions. The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which owns YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the discussions. The companies were legally required to share the data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. People briefed on the discussions spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their existence. In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some instances on company servers. Through these online rooms, the government would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said. The negotiations have continued in recent months, as Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to Silicon Valley to meet with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Intel. Though the official purpose of those meetings was to discuss the future of the Internet, the conversations also touched on how the companies would collaborate with the government in its intelligence-gathering efforts, said a person who attended. While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so. Details on the discussions help explain the disparity between initial descriptions of the government program and the companies' responses. Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, indiscriminate access to its servers. The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company's servers. "The U.S. government does not have direct access or a 'back door' to the information stored in our data centers," Google's chief executive, Larry Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on Friday. "We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law." Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the same distinction. But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said. The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data. Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a lawyer representing a technology company. FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 percent from the year before. In one recent instance, the National Security Agency sent an agent to a tech company's headquarters to monitor a suspect in a cyberattack, a lawyer representing the company said. The agent installed government-developed software on the company's server and remained at the site for several weeks to download data to an agency laptop. In other instances, the lawyer said, the agency seeks real-time transmission of data, which companies send digitally. Twitter spokesmen did not respond to questions about the government requests, but said in general of the company's philosophy toward information requests: Users "have a right to fight invalid government requests, and we stand with them in that fight." Twitter, Google and other companies have typically fought aggressively against requests they believe reach too far. Google, Microsoft and Twitter publish transparency reports detailing government requests for information, but these reports do not include FISA requests because they are not allowed to acknowledge them. Yet since tech companies' cooperation with the government was revealed Thursday, tech executives have been performing a familiar dance, expressing outrage at the extent of the government's power to access personal data and calling for more transparency, while at the same time heaping praise upon the president as he visited Silicon Valley. Even as the White House scrambled to defend its online surveillance, President Obama was mingling with donors at the Silicon Valley home of Mike McCue, Flipboard's chief, eating dinner at the opulent home of Vinod Khosla, the venture capitalist, and cracking jokes about Mr. Khosla's big, shaggy dogs. On Friday, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, posted on Facebook a call for more government transparency. "It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term," he wrote. Reporting was contributed by Nick Bilton, Vindu Goel, Nicole Perlroth and Somini Sengupta in San Francisco; Edward Wyatt in Washington; Brian X. Chen and Leslie Kaufman in New York; and Nick Wingfield in Seattle. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130608073012:C6A4997C-D02E-11E2-917C-C471030EBDDA Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:05:06 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:05:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: > "I am just doing my job, sorry!" > > Ah, the technical community... Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > --c.a. > > > On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> >>> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't see >>> how >>> it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. >> >> >> Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just >> stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:08:51 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 00:08:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to this on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse views expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many diverse views within the IGC. As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease out the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the statement workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it can be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. Sala (co-coordinator) On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > > I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC > supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I > know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of > to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make > something simple. > > I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > > And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering and > generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example see > the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter > rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not > simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > > > On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi Deirdre. >> >> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so >> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which >> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >> basically DRM). >> >> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically >> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting >> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group >> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through >> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of >> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent >> EFF statement. >> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >> scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content." >> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection >> is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >> reference in 2 - >> >> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >> specification: >> >> - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >> - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions >> ) >> - supporting playback of protected content" >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> >> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was >> what we were asked about in the first place? >> Thank you >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Hi Catherine, >>> >>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the >>> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >>> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >>> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >>> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from >>> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >>> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, >>> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sala, >>> >>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>> >>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> (EFF) >>> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> >>> >>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>> comments and suggest text. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >>>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >>>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >>>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>> >>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>> >>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>> >>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>> >>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>> on the revised statement. >>>> >>>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>> the planet. >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be >>>> to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy >>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>> >>>> >>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>> communities. >>>> >>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>> arguments in this regard. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 8 08:24:31 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 21:24:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Hi Sala, Just to be clear, I haven't alluded to anything; I hope I've been clear and direct when saying the February statement was a mess. Which it was (is :-) ) Agree about the need to discuss the new statement. Great to have this mailing list for that purpose, it has worked very well for many years. Best, Adam On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you > perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only > responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to this > on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse views > expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was > reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many > diverse views within the IGC. > > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease out > the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been > expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the statement > workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it can > be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. > > Sala > (co-coordinator) > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know >> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro >> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something >> simple. >> >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering and >> generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example see >> the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter >> rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not >> simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>> Hi Deirdre. >>> >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so >>> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables >>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is >>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >>> basically DRM). >>> >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically >>> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting >>> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group >>> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through >>> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of >>> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>> >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent >>> EFF statement. >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope >>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination >>> of end-user usage of content." >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is >>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >>> reference in 2 - >>> >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >>> specification: >>> >>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases >>> such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >>> >>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >>> supporting playback of protected content" >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>> >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was >>> what we were asked about in the first place? >>> Thank you >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Catherine, >>>> >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C >>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin >>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on >>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers >>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out >>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this >>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could >>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and >>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see >>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty >>>> over their euh, "equipment". >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Roy >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Sala, >>>> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports >>>> the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>> >>>> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks >>>> for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>>> comments and suggest text. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is >>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by >>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have >>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be >>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>> >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>> >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>> >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>>> on the revised statement. >>>>> >>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>>> the planet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut >>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and >>>>> lock in legacy business models. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable >>>>> OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources >>>>> related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In >>>>> such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource >>>>> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >>>>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>>> >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>>> arguments in this regard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 8 08:31:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:31:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0a5401ce6444$15792e20$406b8a60$@gmail.com> [New post] Responding to PRISM: The Internet is global. Dah. Who knew. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/responding-to-prism-the-internet-is -global-dah-who-knew/ http://tinyurl.com/lflphgd M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:05 AM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: > "I am just doing my job, sorry!" > > Ah, the technical community... Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > --c.a. > > > On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> >>> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't >>> see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian >>> Internet users. >> >> >> Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just >> stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:31:46 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:31:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: That was my concern as well. I have just spent some time trying to discover the process by which a Charter [Proposed] becomes THE Charter in a W3C context. I found a stipulation of a review period of at least four weeks http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess which I assume also applies to Charters. However when did the period of review begin? I also found this email, dated in February this year http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html If the intention is to point out that the W3C working group is planning to exceed its appropriate scope - the EFF objection - then if we want to support the EFF in this objection I think there may be some urgency. If our intention is to make a statement objecting to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5 then that is a separate issue. The problem seems to be being caused by conflating these two things. Why not handle them separately? 1. Is there consensus in the IGC to support the EFF objection? 2. Can the IGC create a consensus statement on DRM in HTML5 generally? Deirdre On 8 June 2013 07:41, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > > I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC > supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I > know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of > to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make > something simple. > > I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > > And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering and > generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example see > the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter > rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not > simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > > > On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi Deirdre. >> >> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so >> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which >> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >> basically DRM). >> >> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically >> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting >> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group >> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through >> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of >> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent >> EFF statement. >> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >> scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content." >> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection >> is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >> reference in 2 - >> >> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >> specification: >> >> - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >> - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions >> ) >> - supporting playback of protected content" >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> >> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was >> what we were asked about in the first place? >> Thank you >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Hi Catherine, >>> >>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the >>> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >>> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >>> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >>> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from >>> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >>> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, >>> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sala, >>> >>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>> >>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> (EFF) >>> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> >>> >>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>> comments and suggest text. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >>>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >>>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >>>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>> >>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>> >>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>> >>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>> >>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>> on the revised statement. >>>> >>>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>> the planet. >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be >>>> to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy >>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>> >>>> >>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>> communities. >>>> >>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>> arguments in this regard. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > -- “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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:51:33 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:51:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> References: <7A7FC254-3003-46FF-9ACB-BD3DE8A84E21@farber.net> <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: And for another perspective on the issue http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22808872 Deirdre On 8 June 2013 08:00, michael gurstein wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 7:30 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-conced > > e-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?ref=global-home&_r=0&pagewanted=al > l&pagewanted=print > > Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program > > SAN FRANCISCO - When government officials came to Silicon Valley to demand > easier ways for the world's largest Internet companies to turn over user > data as part of a secret surveillance program, the companies bristled. In > the end, though, many cooperated at least a bit. > > Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies > were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations. They > opened discussions with national security officials about developing > technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data > of foreign users in response to lawful government requests. And in some > cases, they changed their computer systems to do so. > > The negotiations shed a light on how Internet companies, increasingly at > the > center of people's personal lives, interact with the spy agencies that look > to their vast trove of information - e-mails, videos, online chats, photos > and search queries - for intelligence. They illustrate how intricately the > government and tech companies work together, and the depth of their > behind-the-scenes transactions. > > The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which > owns > YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; > Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the > discussions. The companies were legally required to share the data under > the > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. People briefed on the discussions > spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from > discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their > existence. > > In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed > was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure > physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some > instances on company servers. Through these online rooms, the government > would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would > retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said. > > The negotiations have continued in recent months, as Martin E. Dempsey, > chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to Silicon Valley to meet > with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Intel. > Though the official purpose of those meetings was to discuss the future of > the Internet, the conversations also touched on how the companies would > collaborate with the government in its intelligence-gathering efforts, said > a person who attended. > > While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal > requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is > not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so. > > Details on the discussions help explain the disparity between initial > descriptions of the government program and the companies' responses. > > Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program > providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line > between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect > user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court > orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, > indiscriminate access to its servers. > > The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, > including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for > sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve > access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data > is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company's servers. > > "The U.S. government does not have direct access or a 'back door' to the > information stored in our data centers," Google's chief executive, Larry > Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on > Friday. "We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the > law." > > Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the > same distinction. > > But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were > essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the > key, > people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such > a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said. > > The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company > lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is > not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full > access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and > efficient way to hand over the data. > > Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of > cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it > is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even > with others at the company, and in some cases have national security > clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a > lawyer representing a technology company. > > FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep > for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with > the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 > percent from the year before. > > In one recent instance, the National Security Agency sent an agent to a > tech > company's headquarters to monitor a suspect in a cyberattack, a lawyer > representing the company said. The agent installed government-developed > software on the company's server and remained at the site for several weeks > to download data to an agency laptop. > > In other instances, the lawyer said, the agency seeks real-time > transmission > of data, which companies send digitally. > > Twitter spokesmen did not respond to questions about the government > requests, but said in general of the company's philosophy toward > information > requests: Users "have a right to fight invalid government requests, and we > stand with them in that fight." > > Twitter, Google and other companies have typically fought aggressively > against requests they believe reach too far. Google, Microsoft and Twitter > publish transparency reports detailing government requests for information, > but these reports do not include FISA requests because they are not allowed > to acknowledge them. > > Yet since tech companies' cooperation with the government was revealed > Thursday, tech executives have been performing a familiar dance, expressing > outrage at the extent of the government's power to access personal data and > calling for more transparency, while at the same time heaping praise upon > the president as he visited Silicon Valley. > > Even as the White House scrambled to defend its online surveillance, > President Obama was mingling with donors at the Silicon Valley home of Mike > McCue, Flipboard's chief, eating dinner at the opulent home of Vinod > Khosla, > the venture capitalist, and cracking jokes about Mr. Khosla's big, shaggy > dogs. > > On Friday, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, posted on Facebook > a > call for more government transparency. "It's the only way to protect > everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want > over the long term," he wrote. > > Reporting was contributed by Nick Bilton, Vindu Goel, Nicole Perlroth and > Somini Sengupta in San Francisco; Edward Wyatt in Washington; Brian X. Chen > and Leslie Kaufman in New York; and Nick Wingfield in Seattle. > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 > Modify Your Subscription: > > https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 > 08 > Unsubscribe Now: > > https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 > 7c5b007&post_id=20130608073012:C6A4997C-D02E-11E2-917C-C471030EBDDA > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 09:32:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:32:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> So where does the "Technical Community" stand on these issues? (For example, lobbying the US Congress re: the Patriot Act is hardly appropriate as the response for a globally responsible and responsive community I would have thought.) M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:05 AM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: > "I am just doing my job, sorry!" > > Ah, the technical community... Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > --c.a. > > > On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> >>> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't >>> see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian >>> Internet users. >> >> >> Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just >> stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 03:38:54 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:38:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just stating > a fact that has been evident for many decades now. And that contextualises the single rooters argument on CIR. Which is why "US exceptionalism" implicitly or explicitly is an issue for discussion. And shows where the buck stops for people on this list. Hence a serious lack of analytic credibility for single rooters, and Multistakeholderism that cannot deal with INTIMATE relationship between the US govt and corporations. Why is it that governments are seen as presumptively bad but corporations who behave like this (denying what the government affirms - PR or BS?)? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Sat Jun 8 09:45:43 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:45:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 09:53:40 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:53:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <86638C69-C925-4340-A88C-9414FA33EB0D@ella.com> On 8 Jun 2013, at 08:08, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease out the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the statement workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it can be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. > I beleive, we seem to be developing strong support for the cleaned up version of a short statement provided by Adam Peake. On the other hand, I see no support for the dog's breakfast statement at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 And on the last hand, has our making any statement of support taken so long it is becoming irrelevant? 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sat Jun 8 10:13:46 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:13:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <86638C69-C925-4340-A88C-9414FA33EB0D@ella.com> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <86638C69-C925-4340-A88C-9414FA33EB0D@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130608141346.GA6229@tarvainen.info> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:53:40AM -0400, Avri Doria (avri at ella.com) wrote: > we seem to be developing strong support for the cleaned > up version of a short statement provided by Adam Peake. Yes. > And on the last hand, has our making any statement of support taken > so long it is becoming irrelevant? This. If it hasn't already, it will soon. Whatever might be gained by crafting a longer statement will be lost many times over due to the time it would take. -- 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 10:16:36 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:16:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51B33CC4.2020309@gmail.com> Ahh, there is the rub. The single rooters made common cause with with this agenda, and marginalised the critics calling for legitimacy. Wittingly or (worse) unwittingly, the public interest has been abused. Is the technical political? We have had this discussion, but this puts matters into context. It also helps locate the theoretical, ethical and political position of civil society into real historical time. And that speaks volumes. American safeguards are just no good. It also puts Auerbach's point about points of abuse into sharp focus - he is vindicated to a large extent: irrespective of the technical way the spying was done. A lot more persuasion will be necessary on what this reveals, particularly those a certain Third World persuasion, the Lessig's, EFF, etc. We can only hope that this (Cassandra) tragedy results in public interest being better represented in a meaningful way (but we cannot hold our breath to be realistic... ). We can also say that Norbert too has been vindicated for opening up spaces for certain dialogues that were somewhat marginal on this list. This one is a biggie. Cautious change may result or shamelessness. Riaz On 2013/06/08 03:05 PM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: >> "I am just doing my job, sorry!" >> >> Ah, the technical community... > > Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 10:19:21 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:19:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. *A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.* Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. * Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29 ), from Max Farrand's /Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,/ vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465 On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ > > We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. > > Kerry Brown > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 10:04:12 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:04:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> References: <7A7FC254-3003-46FF-9ACB-BD3DE8A84E21@farber.net> <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B339DC.1@gmail.com> Civil society representatives that include these companies will need to clarify how they participate in civil society. A point MS will have to codify into language, if it is not to be a site of abuse, Riaz On 2013/06/08 03:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 7:30 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-conced > e-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?ref=global-home&_r=0&pagewanted=al > l&pagewanted=print > > Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program > > SAN FRANCISCO - When government officials came to Silicon Valley to demand > easier ways for the world's largest Internet companies to turn over user > data as part of a secret surveillance program, the companies bristled. In > the end, though, many cooperated at least a bit. > > Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies > were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations. They > opened discussions with national security officials about developing > technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data > of foreign users in response to lawful government requests. And in some > cases, they changed their computer systems to do so. > > The negotiations shed a light on how Internet companies, increasingly at the > center of people's personal lives, interact with the spy agencies that look > to their vast trove of information - e-mails, videos, online chats, photos > and search queries - for intelligence. They illustrate how intricately the > government and tech companies work together, and the depth of their > behind-the-scenes transactions. > > The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which owns > YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; > Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the > discussions. The companies were legally required to share the data under the > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. People briefed on the discussions > spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from > discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their > existence. > > In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed > was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure > physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some > instances on company servers. Through these online rooms, the government > would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would > retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said. > > The negotiations have continued in recent months, as Martin E. Dempsey, > chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to Silicon Valley to meet > with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Intel. > Though the official purpose of those meetings was to discuss the future of > the Internet, the conversations also touched on how the companies would > collaborate with the government in its intelligence-gathering efforts, said > a person who attended. > > While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal > requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is > not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so. > > Details on the discussions help explain the disparity between initial > descriptions of the government program and the companies' responses. > > Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program > providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line > between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect > user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court > orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, > indiscriminate access to its servers. > > The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, > including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for > sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve > access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data > is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company's servers. > > "The U.S. government does not have direct access or a 'back door' to the > information stored in our data centers," Google's chief executive, Larry > Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on > Friday. "We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the > law." > > Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the > same distinction. > > But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were > essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, > people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such > a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said. > > The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company > lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is > not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full > access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and > efficient way to hand over the data. > > Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of > cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it > is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even > with others at the company, and in some cases have national security > clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a > lawyer representing a technology company. > > FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep > for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with > the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 > percent from the year before. > > In one recent instance, the National Security Agency sent an agent to a tech > company's headquarters to monitor a suspect in a cyberattack, a lawyer > representing the company said. The agent installed government-developed > software on the company's server and remained at the site for several weeks > to download data to an agency laptop. > > In other instances, the lawyer said, the agency seeks real-time transmission > of data, which companies send digitally. > > Twitter spokesmen did not respond to questions about the government > requests, but said in general of the company's philosophy toward information > requests: Users "have a right to fight invalid government requests, and we > stand with them in that fight." > > Twitter, Google and other companies have typically fought aggressively > against requests they believe reach too far. Google, Microsoft and Twitter > publish transparency reports detailing government requests for information, > but these reports do not include FISA requests because they are not allowed > to acknowledge them. > > Yet since tech companies' cooperation with the government was revealed > Thursday, tech executives have been performing a familiar dance, expressing > outrage at the extent of the government's power to access personal data and > calling for more transparency, while at the same time heaping praise upon > the president as he visited Silicon Valley. > > Even as the White House scrambled to defend its online surveillance, > President Obama was mingling with donors at the Silicon Valley home of Mike > McCue, Flipboard's chief, eating dinner at the opulent home of Vinod Khosla, > the venture capitalist, and cracking jokes about Mr. Khosla's big, shaggy > dogs. > > On Friday, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, posted on Facebook a > call for more government transparency. "It's the only way to protect > everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want > over the long term," he wrote. > > Reporting was contributed by Nick Bilton, Vindu Goel, Nicole Perlroth and > Somini Sengupta in San Francisco; Edward Wyatt in Washington; Brian X. Chen > and Leslie Kaufman in New York; and Nick Wingfield in Seattle. > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 > 08 > Unsubscribe Now: > https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 > 7c5b007&post_id=20130608073012:C6A4997C-D02E-11E2-917C-C471030EBDDA > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jun 8 10:25:47 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:55:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B33CC4.2020309@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <51B33CC4.2020309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <596BD008-BDD3-4E86-BFEF-392588F43F80@hserus.net> This is surprising. A so-called "single rooter" McTim expresses opposition of the exact same thing the splinter minority rump group we have here of "third worldists" and other assorted purveyors of ideological cant are opposed to, and this is twisted into yet another highly predictable denunciation of the technical community at large? And is the centurion hammering nails into Christ's body a metaphor for something more recent where the "orders are orders" defense was tried, and rejected? In either case, a soldier following or refusing to follow a criminal order is hardly the right analogy to use in any kind of civilian context. --srs (iPad) On 08-Jun-2013, at 19:46, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Ahh, there is the rub. > > The single rooters made common cause with with this agenda, and marginalised the critics calling for legitimacy. Wittingly or (worse) unwittingly, the public interest has been abused. > > Is the technical political? We have had this discussion, but this puts matters into context. It also helps locate the theoretical, ethical and political position of civil society into real historical time. And that speaks volumes. American safeguards are just no good. It also puts Auerbach's point about points of abuse into sharp focus - he is vindicated to a large extent: irrespective of the technical way the spying was done. > > A lot more persuasion will be necessary on what this reveals, particularly those a certain Third World persuasion, the Lessig's, EFF, etc. We can only hope that this (Cassandra) tragedy results in public interest being better represented in a meaningful way (but we cannot hold our breath to be realistic... ). We can also say that Norbert too has been vindicated for opening up spaces for certain dialogues that were somewhat marginal on this list. > > This one is a biggie. Cautious change may result or shamelessness. > > Riaz > > > > > > On 2013/06/08 03:05 PM, McTim wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: >>> "I am just doing my job, sorry!" >>> >>> Ah, the technical community... >> >> Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 10:25:41 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:25:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) Top NSA Whistleblower Spills the Beans on the Real Scope of the Spying Program Message-ID: <51B33EE5.9@gmail.com> Exclusive: Top NSA Whistleblower Spills the Beans on the Real Scope of the Spying Program Posted on June 8, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog Top NSA Official: Government Tapping CONTENT, Not Just Metadata ... Using Bogus "Secret Interpretation" of Patriot Act We reported in 2008 that /foreign/ companies have had key roles scooping up Americans' communications for the NSA: At least two foreign companies play key roles in processing the information. Specifically, an Israeli company called Narus processes all of the information tapped by AT &T (AT & T taps, and gives to the NSA, copies of all phone calls it processes), and an Israeli company called Verint processes information tapped by Verizon (Verizon also taps, and gives to the NSA, all of its calls). Business Insider notes today: The newest information regarding the NSA domestic spying scandal raises an important question: If America's tech giants didn't 'participate knowingly' in the dragnet of electronic communication, how does the NSA get all of their data ? One theory: the NSA hired two secretive Israeli companies to wiretap the U.S. telecommunications network. In April 2012 Wired's James Bamford --- author of the book "The Shadow Factory: The NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America " --- reported that two companies with extensive links to Israel's intelligence service provided hardware and software the U.S. telecommunications network for the National Security Agency (NSA). By doing so, this would imply, companies like Facebook and Google don't have to explicitly provide the NSA with access to their servers because major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as AT&T and Verizon already allows the U.S. signals intelligence agency to eavesdrop on all of their data anyway. From Bamford (emphasis ours): "According to a former Verizon employee briefed on the program, Verint , owned by Comverse Technology, *taps the communication lines at Verizon*... *At AT&T the wiretapping rooms are* powered by software and hardware from Narus , now owned by Boeing , a discovery made by AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein in 2004." Klein, an engineer, discovered the "secret room" at AT&T central office in San Francisco , through which the NSA actively "*vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T*" through the wiretapping rooms, emphasizing that "much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic." NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake corroborated Klein's assertions, testifying that while the NSA is using Israeli-made NARUS hardware to "seize and save all personal electronic communications." Both Verint and Narus were founded in Israel in the 1990s. *** "*Anything that comes through (an internet protocol network), we can record*," Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus , a Mountain View, California company, said . "We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their (voice over internet protocol) calls." With a telecom wiretap the NSA only needs companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple to passively participate while the agency to intercepts, stores, and analyzes their communication data. The indirect nature of the agreement would provide tech giants with plausible deniability. **And having a foreign contractor bug the telecom grid would mean that the NSA gained access to most of the domestic traffic flowing through the U.S. without *technically* doing it themselves. This would provide the NSA, whose official mission is to spy on foreign communications, with plausible deniability regarding domestic snooping. The reason that Business Insider is speculating about the use of private Israeli companies to thwart the law is that 2 high-ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- Senators Wyden and Udall -- have long said that the government has adopted a /secret interpretation/ of section 215 of the Patriot Act which would shock Americans , because it provides a breathtakingly wide program of spying. Last December, top NSA whistleblower William Binney -- a 32-year NSA veteran with the title of senior technical director, who headed the agency's global digital data gathering program (featured in a New York Times documentary , and the source for much of what we know about NSA spying) -- said that the government is using a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act which allows the government to obtain: *Any* data *in any third party*, like any *commercial data* that's held about U.S. citizens .... (relevant quote starts at 4:19). I called Binney to find out what he meant. I began by asking Binney if Business Insider's speculation was correct. Specifically, I asked Binney if the government's secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was that a foreign company -- like Narus, for example -- could vacuum up information on Americans, and then the NSA would obtain that data under the excuse of spying on /foreign/ entities ... i.e. an Israeli company. Binney replied no ... it was /broader/ than that. Binney explained that the government is taking the position that it can gather and use /any information/ about American citizens living on U.S. soil if it comes from: *Any* service provider ... *any* third party ... *any commercial company -- like a telecom or internet service provider, libraries, medical companies* -- holding data about anyone, *any U.S. citizen* or anyone else. I followed up to make sure I understood what Binney was saying, asking whether the government's secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was that the government could use any information as long as it came from a private company ... /foreign or domestic/. In other words, the government is using the antiquated, bogus legal argument that it was not using its governmental powers (called "acting under color of law" by judges), but that it was /private/ companies just doing their thing (which the government /happened/ to order all of the private companies to collect and fork over). Binney confirmed that this was correct. This is what the phone company spying program and the Prism program -- the government spying on big Internet companies -- is based upon. Since all digital communications go through private company networks, websites or other systems, the government just demands that all of the companies turn them over. Let's use an analogy to understand how bogus this interpretation of the Patriot Act is. This argument is analogous to a Congressman hiring a hit man to shoot someone asking too many questions, and loaning him his gun to carry out the deed ... and then later saying "I didn't do it, it was that /private citizen/!" That wouldn't pass the laugh test even at an unaccredited, web-based law school offered through a porn site. I then asked the NSA veteran if the government's claim that it is only spying on metadata -- and not content -- was correct. We have extensively documented that the government is likely recording /content/ as well. (And the government has previously admitted to "accidentally" collecting more information on Americans than was legal , and then gagged the judges so they couldn't disclose the nature or extent of the violations .) Binney said that was /not/ true; the government is gathering everything, */including content/*. Binney explained -- as he has many times before -- that the government is storing /everything/, and creating a searchable database ... to be used whenever it wants, for any purpose it wants (even just going after someone it doesn't like). Binney said that former FBI counter-terrorism agent Tim Clemente is correct when he says that /no/ digital data is safe (Clemente says that /all/ digital communications are being recorded). Binney gave me an idea of how powerful Narus recording systems are. There are probably 18 of them around the country, and they can each record 10 gigabytes of data -- the equivalent of a million and a quarter emails with 1,000 characters each -- per /second/. Binney next confirmed the statement of the author of the Patriot Act -- Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner -- that the NSA spying programs violate the Patriot Act . After all, the Patriot Act is focused on spying on /external/ threats ... not on Americans. Binney asked rhetorically: "How can an American court [FISA or otherwise] tell telecoms to cough up all domestic data?!" Update: Binney sent the following clarifying email about content collection: It's clear to me that they are collecting most e-mail in full plus other text type data on the web. As for phone calls, I don't think they would record/transcribe the approximately 3 billion US-to-US calls every day. It's more likely that they are recording and transcribing calls made by the 500,000 to 1,000,000 targets in the US and the world. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jun 8 10:28:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:58:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1193463A-EC54-4842-B324-9182EC2B3BD2@hserus.net> And standing armies are a feature of most if not all democracies, around the world, for some centuries since the mid 1700s. Even one where the government is as decentralized as, say, Switzerland. We don't quite have armed soldiers doing any of this snooping, either. So how or why does this analogy come into the picture? --srs (iPad) On 08-Jun-2013, at 19:49, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. > Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465 > On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: >> Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? >> >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ >> >> We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. >> >> Kerry Brown >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jun 8 10:41:29 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:41:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) Top NSA Whistleblower Spills the Beans on the Real Scope of the Spying Program In-Reply-To: <51B33EE5.9@gmail.com> References: <51B33EE5.9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B34299.2080904@cafonso.ca> It is obvious that wiretapping the telecom nets plays a central role in keeping an eye on every American and anyone else whose Internet traffic passes through US operators (not to speak of what the US is able to concoct on location in other countries). The 2006 NSA+AT&T case is a scandalous example, which shows they do not need to resort to Israeli techies to do the job. My best overall source continues to be the EFF: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/faq And, of course, for the specific case I mention, Wired: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619 []s fraternos --c.a. On 06/08/2013 11:25 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > Exclusive: Top NSA Whistleblower Spills the Beans on the Real Scope of > the Spying Program > > Posted on June 8, 2013 > > by WashingtonsBlog > > > Top NSA Official: Government Tapping CONTENT, Not Just Metadata … > Using Bogus “Secret Interpretation” of Patriot Act > > We reported > > in 2008 that /foreign/ companies have had key roles scooping up > Americans’ communications for the NSA: > > At least two foreign companies > > play key roles in processing the information. > > Specifically, an Israeli company called Narus processes all of the > information tapped by AT &T (AT & T taps, and gives to the NSA, > copies of all phone calls it processes), and an Israeli company > called Verint processes information tapped by Verizon (Verizon also > taps, and gives to the NSA, all of its calls). > > Business Insider notes > > today: > > The newest information regarding the NSA domestic spying scandal > > raises an important question: If America’s tech giants didn’t > ‘participate knowingly’ in the dragnet of electronic communication, > how does the NSA get all of their data > ? > > One theory: the NSA hired two secretive Israeli companies to wiretap > the U.S. telecommunications network. > > In April 2012 Wired’s James Bamford — author of the book “The Shadow > Factory: The NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America > ” > — reported that two companies with extensive links to Israel’s > intelligence service provided hardware and software the U.S. > telecommunications network > > for the National Security Agency (NSA). > > By doing so, this would imply, companies like Facebook and Google > don’t have to explicitly provide the NSA with access to their > servers because major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as AT&T > and Verizon already allows the U.S. signals intelligence agency to > eavesdrop on all of their data anyway. > > From Bamford > > (emphasis ours): > > “According to a former Verizon > employee > briefed on the program, Verint , owned by > Comverse Technology, *taps the communication lines at Verizon*… > > *At AT&T the wiretapping rooms are* powered by software and > hardware from Narus > , > now owned by Boeing > , a discovery > made by AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein > in > 2004.” > > Klein, an engineer, discovered the “secret room” at AT&T central > office in San Francisco > , > through which the NSA actively “*vacuumed up Internet and phone-call > data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T*” through > the wiretapping rooms, emphasizing > > that “much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely > domestic.” > > NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake corroborated Klein’s assertions, > testifying > > that while the NSA is using Israeli-made NARUS hardware > to > “seize and save > > all personal electronic communications.” > > Both Verint and Narus were founded in Israel in the 1990s. > > *** > > “*Anything that comes through (an internet protocol network), we can > record*,” Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus > , a Mountain View, California company, said > . “We > can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see > what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their (voice over > internet protocol) calls.” > > With a telecom wiretap the NSA only needs companies like Microsoft, > Google, and Apple to passively participate while the agency to > intercepts, stores, and analyzes their communication data. The > indirect nature of the agreement would provide tech giants with > plausible deniability. > > **And having a foreign contractor bug the telecom grid would mean > that the NSA gained access to most of the domestic traffic flowing > through the U.S. without *technically* doing it themselves. > > This would provide the NSA, whose official mission is to spy on > foreign communications, with plausible deniability regarding > domestic snooping. > > The reason that Business Insider is speculating about the use of private > Israeli companies to thwart the law is that 2 high-ranking members of > the Senate Intelligence Committee – Senators Wyden and Udall – have long > said that the government has adopted a /secret interpretation/ of > section 215 of the Patriot Act which would shock Americans > , > because it provides a breathtakingly wide program of spying. > > Last December, top NSA whistleblower William Binney – a 32-year NSA > veteran with the title of senior technical director, who headed the > agency’s global digital data gathering program (featured in a New York > Times documentary > , > and the source for much of what we know > about > NSA spying) – said that the government is using a secret interpretation > of Section 215 of the Patriot Act which allows the government to obtain: > > *Any* data *in any third party*, like any *commercial data* that’s > held about U.S. citizens …. > > (relevant quote starts at 4:19). > > I called Binney to find out what he meant. > > I began by asking Binney if Business Insider’s speculation was correct. > Specifically, I asked Binney if the government’s secret interpretation > of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was that a foreign company – like > Narus, for example – could vacuum up information on Americans, and then > the NSA would obtain that data under the excuse of spying on /foreign/ > entities … i.e. an Israeli company. > > Binney replied no … it was /broader/ than that. > > Binney explained that the government is taking the position that it can > gather and use /any information/ about American citizens living on U.S. > soil if it comes from: > > *Any* service provider … *any* third party … *any commercial company > – like a telecom or internet service provider, libraries, medical > companies* – holding data about anyone, *any U.S. citizen* or anyone > else. > > I followed up to make sure I understood what Binney was saying, asking > whether the government’s secret interpretation of Section 215 of the > Patriot Act was that the government could use any information as long as > it came from a private company … /foreign or domestic/. In other words, > the government is using the antiquated, bogus legal argument that it was > not using its governmental powers (called “acting under color of law” by > judges), but that it was /private/ companies just doing their thing > (which the government /happened/ to order all of the private companies > to collect and fork over). > > Binney confirmed that this was correct. This is what the phone company > spying program and the Prism > > program – the government spying on big Internet companies – is based > upon. Since all digital communications go through private company > networks, websites or other systems, the government just demands that > all of the companies > > turn them over. > > Let’s use an analogy to understand how bogus this interpretation of the > Patriot Act is. This argument is analogous to a Congressman hiring a hit > man to shoot someone asking too many questions, and loaning him his gun > to carry out the deed … and then later saying “I didn’t do it, it was > that /private citizen/!” That wouldn’t pass the laugh test even at an > unaccredited, web-based law school offered through a porn site. > > I then asked the NSA veteran if the government’s claim that it is only > spying on metadata – and not content – was correct. We have extensively > documented that the government is likely recording /content/ > > as well. (And the government has previously admitted to “accidentally” > collecting more information on Americans than was legal > , and > then gagged the judges so they couldn’t disclose the nature or extent of > the violations > .) > > Binney said that was /not/ true; the government is gathering everything, > */including content/*. > > Binney explained – as he has many times before > > – that the government is storing /everything/, and creating a searchable > database … to be used whenever it wants, for any purpose it wants (even > just going after someone it doesn’t like). > > Binney said that former FBI counter-terrorism agent Tim Clemente is > correct when he says > that /no/ > digital data is safe (Clemente says that /all/ digital communications > are being recorded). > > Binney gave me an idea of how powerful Narus recording systems are. > There are probably 18 of them around the country, and they can each > record 10 gigabytes of data – the equivalent of a million and a quarter > emails with 1,000 characters each – per /second/. > > Binney next confirmed the statement of the author of the Patriot Act – > Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner – that the NSA spying programs violate the > Patriot Act > . > After all, the Patriot Act is focused on spying on /external/ threats … > not on Americans. > > Binney asked rhetorically: “How can an American court [FISA or > otherwise] tell telecoms to cough up all domestic data?!” > > Update: Binney sent the following clarifying email about content collection: > > It’s clear to me that they are collecting most e-mail in full plus > other text type data on the web. > > As for phone calls, I don’t think they would record/transcribe the > approximately 3 billion US-to-US calls every day. It’s more likely > that they are recording and transcribing calls made by the 500,000 > to 1,000,000 targets in the US and the world. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Sat Jun 8 10:43:35 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 14:43:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> Message-ID: I’m not sure of your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to change this type of behaviour by those in power? Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob Sent: June-08-13 7:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. * Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465 On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 11:06:16 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 18:06:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B34868.9060108@gmail.com> I believe in the reality of choice. To translate, from one Third World perspective, pithily: 1. Imperialism (abroad) breeds tyranny at home - Madison saw it. Foreign entanglements were a real problem because of the kind of people it strengthened in power. 2. Europe later America has had the tools for the emancipation of humanity. They have not been up to the task. Hence the challenge by some third worldists on the monopoly of definition and the rights to determine the terms of the terms of the debate (much like Haitian's took liberte, egalite, fraternity and gave the vote to all irrespective of property ownership). 3. As Pouzin pointed out, this is old hat, but gets coverage now. Groundless (as meta-narrative - like centre/periphery, third worldism) "evidence" cannot rebut the presumption in favour of advanced countries who live under a dualistic system - increasingly democratic but also paranoic and hence authoritarian-like. 4. In historical time, Madison points out this has been constitutive of democracy itself, much like the early US settlers who wanted to be free men, including free to keep slaves. Riaz On 2013/06/08 05:43 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > I’m not sure of your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my > contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to change this > type of behaviour by those in power? > > Kerry Brown > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz K Tayob > *Sent:* June-08-13 7:19 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech > giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | > guardian.co.uk > > In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given > to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the > same tendency to render the head too large for the body. *A standing > military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe > companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger > have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.* Among the Romans > it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was > apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the > pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. > > * Speech, Constitutional Convention > (1787-06-29 > ), > from Max Farrand's /Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,/ > vol. I [1] > > (1911), p. 465 > > On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? > > > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ > > > > We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. > > > > Kerry Brown > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 11:24:38 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 11:24:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> >> Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just >> stating >> a fact that has been evident for many decades now. > > > And that contextualises the single rooters argument on CIR. It does no such thing. > > Which is why "US exceptionalism" implicitly or explicitly is an issue for > discussion. And shows where the buck stops for people on this list. For the umpteenth time, there are zero "US exceptionalists" on this list. > > Hence a serious lack of analytic credibility for single rooters, and > Multistakeholderism that cannot deal with INTIMATE relationship It's a legal relationship. Would you ask that Google/FB/Yahoo!, etc be answerable to the UN? If so, you (and Michael, et. al. in their calls for a "global framework") are guilty of "Magical Thinking" if you seriously contend that gov'ts will give up that much sovereignty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking between the > US govt and corporations. Why is it that governments are seen as > presumptively bad but corporations who behave like this (denying what the > government affirms - PR or BS?)? Because this is government imposed "evil". Do I wish the Yahoo!'s and FB's had fought harder against this? sure! If I ran FB or Goolge, would I do the same faced with a legal order from a "secret court" that would punish me personally if I revealed the existence of said order? Probably. I might look into moving ops offshore (Ireland) in that case...oh wait we are against that as well. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Sat Jun 8 11:50:51 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:50:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B34868.9060108@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> <51B34868.9060108@gmail.com> Message-ID: I’m still not sure if you agree or disagree with my contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to change this type of behaviour by those in power. I understand that historically things were different. I understand that some people don’t think that we have a chance to change this. I understand that many people have written or spoken about this. What I don’t understand so far is if you agree or disagree that in a modern democracy this can be changed. I’m not saying it would be easy or even that the odds are good. All I’m saying is the chance exists and I for one am working to making it happen. I don’t believe that defeatism is useful in reality or as an argument against working for change. Kerry Brown From: Riaz K Tayob [mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Sent: June-08-13 8:06 AM To: Kerry Brown Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk I believe in the reality of choice. To translate, from one Third World perspective, pithily: 1. Imperialism (abroad) breeds tyranny at home - Madison saw it. Foreign entanglements were a real problem because of the kind of people it strengthened in power. 2. Europe later America has had the tools for the emancipation of humanity. They have not been up to the task. Hence the challenge by some third worldists on the monopoly of definition and the rights to determine the terms of the terms of the debate (much like Haitian's took liberte, egalite, fraternity and gave the vote to all irrespective of property ownership). 3. As Pouzin pointed out, this is old hat, but gets coverage now. Groundless (as meta-narrative - like centre/periphery, third worldism) "evidence" cannot rebut the presumption in favour of advanced countries who live under a dualistic system - increasingly democratic but also paranoic and hence authoritarian-like. 4. In historical time, Madison points out this has been constitutive of democracy itself, much like the early US settlers who wanted to be free men, including free to keep slaves. Riaz On 2013/06/08 05:43 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: I’m not sure of your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to change this type of behaviour by those in power? Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob Sent: June-08-13 7:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. * Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465 On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 12:23:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:23:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NYTimes.com: New Nuclear Sub Is Said to Have Special Eavesdropping Ability In-Reply-To: <282F3D53-E2D2-4564-A0BE-E190EAB676DA@farber.net> References: <201306081547.r58Fl4J3015990@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> <282F3D53-E2D2-4564-A0BE-E190EAB676DA@farber.net> Message-ID: <0afe01ce6464$84b7fa80$8e27ef80$@gmail.com> Note the date... M -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:49 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] NYTimes.com: New Nuclear Sub Is Said to Have Special Eavesdropping Ability WASHINGTON | February 20, 2005 New Nuclear Sub Is Said to Have Special Eavesdropping Ability By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS The submarine Jimmy Carter is able to tap undersea cables and eavesdrop on the communications passing through them, intelligence experts say. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130608114922:FAD2D69A-D052-11E2-812B-B7F5FFE5F9C2 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 12:24:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 04:24:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Sala, > > Just to be clear, I haven't alluded to anything; I hope I've been > clear and direct when saying the February statement was a mess. Which > it was (is :-) > < > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/contributions/contributions/Civil_Society_Caucus_Feb_2013%20copy.pdf > >) > > That mess that you referred to was the consolidation of the statements expressed by members of the IGC. Whilst it is all very well and easy to whinge post the process, it is even far better to participate during the process of preparing the statement. > Agree about the need to discuss the new statement. Great to have this > mailing list for that purpose, it has worked very well for many years. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you > > perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only > > responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to > this > > on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse > views > > expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was > > reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many > > diverse views within the IGC. > > > > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease > out > > the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been > > expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the > statement > > workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it > can > > be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. > > > > Sala > > (co-coordinator) > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > >> > >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying > IGC > >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I > know > >> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of > to&fro > >> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something > >> simple. > >> > >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > >> > >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering > and > >> generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example > see > >> the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> > >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group > charter > >> rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not > >> simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > >> > >> > >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Deirdre. > >>> > >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I > so > >>> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal > >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that > enables > >>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) > >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in > >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote > >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, > which is > >>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so > >>> basically DRM). > >>> > >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to > basically > >>> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting > >>> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group > >>> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, > through > >>> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the > use of > >>> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > >>> > >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC > >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Catherine > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Catherine Roy > >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >>> > >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) > >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this > morning. > >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the > recent > >>> EFF statement. > >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", > >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of > scope > >>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote > determination > >>> of end-user usage of content." > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The > objection is > >>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed > >>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this > >>> reference in 2 - > >>> > >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML > >>> specification: > >>> > >>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use > cases > >>> such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: > >>> > >>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) > >>> supporting playback of protected content" > >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > >>> > >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to > the > >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which > was > >>> what we were asked about in the first place? > >>> Thank you > >>> Deirdre > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Catherine, > >>>> > >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to > the > >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable > facts, I > >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one > of the > >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on > the W3C > >>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the > margin > >>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, > be on > >>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular > browsers > >>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with > shutting out > >>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in > this > >>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it > could > >>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a > wordsmith and > >>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to > see > >>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and > sovereignty > >>>> over their euh, "equipment". > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Catherine > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Catherine Roy > >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Sala, > >>>> > >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site > >>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. > Perhaps you > >>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many > people > >>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > >>>> > >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >>>> > >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > supports > >>>> the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > has > >>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > digital > >>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >>>> > >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and > speaks > >>>> for itself. See no need to add more than above. > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >>>> > >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your > >>>> comments and suggest text. > >>>> > >>>> Kind Regards, > >>>> Sala > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear All, > >>>>> > >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the > >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence > still in > >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the > balance of > >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like > the DRM > >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". > This is > >>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly > explored by > >>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). > I have > >>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be > >>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in > relation to > >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > >>>>> > >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the > Statement > >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment > in the > >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more > effective > >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my > apologies > >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. > >>>>> > >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that > whilst > >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The > key > >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- > >>>>> > >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes > are of > >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is > on the > >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track > comments > >>>>> on the revised statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection > >>>>> > >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > Foundation > >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium > (W3C) > >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people > across > >>>>> the planet. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to > an > >>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be > to shut > >>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability > and > >>>>> lock in legacy business models. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to > enable > >>>>> OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing > resources > >>>>> related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse > content. In > >>>>> such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious > resource > >>>>> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant > ease of > >>>>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. > >>>>> > >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the > >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the > EFF's > >>>>> arguments in this regard. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>>> P.O. Box 17862 > >>>> Suva > >>>> Fiji > >>>> > >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 > >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William > >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To 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 > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 12:33:27 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:33:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> On 8 Jun 2013, at 11:24, McTim wrote: > oh wait we are against that as well. Why are we against moving things to privacy and data havens like Ireland. Iceland and others? I think it would be a great incentive for creating data havens. Is it because that would be a market type force - voting with our data - and we must not ever admit that even market forces are useful sometimes? BTW how many countries spy on the data that cross their geographical borders from outside their borders? How many data havens are there? And bravo to the countries trying to create them. Oh, and yes in terms of the US (as I always have been) I am for doing away with the Patriot Act and the secrecy of FISA courts, though I do acknowledge that they were an improvement on Patriot Act without FISA courts and congressional oversight. I favor all countries doing away with all geographical data borders of every sort. But that is in the fat chance category, so I live knowing i live in a glass house, and recognizing that we all live in glass houses*, I am constantly shopping for curtains. avri Though some are just one way glass -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 12:35:57 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:35:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Hi, As far as know those accused of whinging, did participate. We offered edits and we are even the ones who went to the site and entered comments. We did not have the permission to edit text so we didn't. Really! avri On 8 Jun 2013, at 12:24, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Sala, > > Just to be clear, I haven't alluded to anything; I hope I've been > clear and direct when saying the February statement was a mess. Which > it was (is :-) > ) > > That mess that you referred to was the consolidation of the statements expressed by members of the IGC. Whilst it is all very well and easy to whinge post the process, it is even far better to participate during the process of preparing the statement. > > Agree about the need to discuss the new statement. Great to have this > mailing list for that purpose, it has worked very well for many years. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you > > perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only > > responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to this > > on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse views > > expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was > > reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many > > diverse views within the IGC. > > > > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease out > > the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been > > expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the statement > > workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it can > > be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. > > > > Sala > > (co-coordinator) > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > >> > >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC > >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know > >> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro > >> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something > >> simple. > >> > >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > >> > >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering and > >> generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example see > >> the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> > >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter > >> rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not > >> simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > >> > >> > >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Deirdre. > >>> > >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so > >>> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal > >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables > >>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) > >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in > >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote > >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is > >>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so > >>> basically DRM). > >>> > >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically > >>> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting > >>> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group > >>> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through > >>> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of > >>> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > >>> > >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC > >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Catherine > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Catherine Roy > >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >>> > >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. > >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent > >>> EFF statement. > >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", > >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope > >>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination > >>> of end-user usage of content." > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is > >>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed > >>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this > >>> reference in 2 - > >>> > >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML > >>> specification: > >>> > >>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases > >>> such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: > >>> > >>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) > >>> supporting playback of protected content" > >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > >>> > >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the > >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was > >>> what we were asked about in the first place? > >>> Thank you > >>> Deirdre > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Catherine, > >>>> > >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the > >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I > >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the > >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C > >>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin > >>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on > >>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers > >>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out > >>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this > >>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could > >>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and > >>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see > >>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty > >>>> over their euh, "equipment". > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Catherine > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Catherine Roy > >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Sala, > >>>> > >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site > >>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you > >>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people > >>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > >>>> > >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >>>> > >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports > >>>> the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has > >>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital > >>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >>>> > >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks > >>>> for itself. See no need to add more than above. > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >>>> > >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your > >>>> comments and suggest text. > >>>> > >>>> Kind Regards, > >>>> Sala > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear All, > >>>>> > >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the > >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in > >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of > >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM > >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is > >>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by > >>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have > >>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be > >>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to > >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > >>>>> > >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement > >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the > >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective > >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies > >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. > >>>>> > >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst > >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key > >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- > >>>>> > >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of > >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments > >>>>> on the revised statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection > >>>>> > >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across > >>>>> the planet. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an > >>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut > >>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and > >>>>> lock in legacy business models. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable > >>>>> OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources > >>>>> related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In > >>>>> such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource > >>>>> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of > >>>>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. > >>>>> > >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the > >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's > >>>>> arguments in this regard. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>>> P.O. Box 17862 > >>>> Suva > >>>> Fiji > >>>> > >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 > >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To 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 > > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 12:52:13 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 04:52:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Thanks Deirdre. What we will do is organise a poll on the matter. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > That was my concern as well. > I have just spent some time trying to discover the process by which a > Charter [Proposed] becomes THE Charter in a W3C context. I found a > stipulation of a review period of at least four weeks > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess which > I assume also applies to Charters. However when did the period of review > begin? > I also found this email, dated in February this year > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html > If the intention is to point out that the W3C working group is planning to > exceed its appropriate scope - the EFF objection - then if we want to > support the EFF in this objection I think there may be some urgency. > If our intention is to make a statement objecting to the inclusion of DRM > in HTML5 then that is a separate issue. > The problem seems to be being caused by conflating these two things. > Why not handle them separately? > 1. Is there consensus in the IGC to support the EFF objection? > 2. Can the IGC create a consensus statement on DRM in HTML5 generally? > Deirdre > > > On 8 June 2013 07:41, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I >> know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of >> to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make >> something simple. >> >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering >> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example >> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are >> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> Hi Deirdre. >>> >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I >>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >>> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which >>> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >>> basically DRM). >>> >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as >>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working >>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, >>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable >>> the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>> >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >>> recent EFF statement. >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >>> scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >>> determination of end-user usage of content." >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The >>> objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a >>> detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >>> reference in 2 - >>> >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >>> specification: >>> >>> - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support >>> use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions >>> for: >>> - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions >>> ) >>> - supporting playback of protected content" >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>> >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which >>> was what we were asked about in the first place? >>> Thank you >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Catherine, >>>> >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the >>>> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >>>> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >>>> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >>>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >>>> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from >>>> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >>>> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >>>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, >>>> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >>>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Sala, >>>> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>>> site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps >>>> you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many >>>> people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> (EFF) >>>> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>>> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> >>>> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>>> comments and suggest text. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >>>>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >>>>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >>>>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>> >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>> >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>> >>>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML >>>>> 5? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>>> on the revised statement. >>>>> >>>>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>>> the planet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be >>>>> to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy >>>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>>> communities. >>>>> >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>>> arguments in this regard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 13:01:36 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:01:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA Message-ID: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Hi, Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. The US Supreme Court last week upheld the authorization for police to take a DNA sample from anyone arrested for any crime. And this DNA will become part of your permanent US record. Cannot tell you how much I hate this ruling. So figured you all should be warned, in case it missed your notice, being just an internal thing. avri * if i am allowed to use that word as an active verb without having been elected. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jstyre at jstyre.com Sat Jun 8 13:04:14 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 10:04:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, In-Reply-To: <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> Message-ID: <001701ce646a$3bb1c4a0$b3154de0$@jstyre.com> > Oh, and yes in terms of the US (as I always have been) I am for doing away with the > Patriot Act and the secrecy of FISA courts, though I do acknowledge that they were an > improvement on Patriot Act without FISA courts and congressional oversight. Avri, just a small nit. FISC (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) predates PATRIOT by decades. It was created in 1979, in response to the Church Committee's findings of abuses by the Nixon Administration. WaPo has a nice little text and graphic summary overview at http://wapo.st/18dUS1I -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 9:33 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user > data, > > > On 8 Jun 2013, at 11:24, McTim wrote: > > > oh wait we are against that as well. > > > Why are we against moving things to privacy and data havens like Ireland. Iceland and > others? I think it would be a great incentive for creating data havens. > > Is it because that would be a market type force - voting with our data - and we must not > ever admit that even market forces are useful sometimes? > > BTW how many countries spy on the data that cross their geographical borders from outside > their borders? How many data havens are there? And bravo to the countries trying to > create them. > > Oh, and yes in terms of the US (as I always have been) I am for doing away with the > Patriot Act and the secrecy of FISA courts, though I do acknowledge that they were an > improvement on Patriot Act without FISA courts and congressional oversight. I favor all > countries doing away with all geographical data borders of every sort. But that is in the > fat chance category, so I live knowing i live in a glass house, and recognizing that we > all live in glass houses*, I am constantly shopping for curtains. > > > avri > > Though some are just one way glass -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 8 13:04:37 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 10:04:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130608170437.GB27942@hserus.net> Avri Doria [08/06/13 13:01 -0400]: >Hi, > >Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. I thought the preferred word here is "tangential"? :) In any case, I must thank you for fair and accurate labeling of this email And more seriously, I agree that this is something that should concern privacy advocates. And opens up questions such as what happens when say a conviction is overturned on appeal, or record expunged for other reasons (say a juvenile is punished) .. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 13:04:59 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:04:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <74AD893B-0B20-4B58-BFD3-1F6D271DF712@ella.com> On 8 Jun 2013, at 12:52, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > What we will do is organise a poll on the matter. when did polling, i.e. voting, become the way we made consensus calls? from the CHARTER: > The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. I do not find the word Poll anywhere in the charter. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 13:06:26 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:06:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, In-Reply-To: <001701ce646a$3bb1c4a0$b3154de0$@jstyre.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> <001701ce646a$3bb1c4a0$b3154de0$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: <96E78B17-EE3E-40DC-92D4-A784975E9C84@ella.com> thanks for the correction. avri On 8 Jun 2013, at 13:04, James S. Tyre wrote: >> Oh, and yes in terms of the US (as I always have been) I am for doing away with the >> Patriot Act and the secrecy of FISA courts, though I do acknowledge that they were an >> improvement on Patriot Act without FISA courts and congressional oversight. > > Avri, just a small nit. FISC (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) predates PATRIOT by decades. It was > created in 1979, in response to the Church Committee's findings of abuses by the Nixon Administration. > > WaPo has a nice little text and graphic summary overview at http://wapo.st/18dUS1I > > -- > James S. Tyre > Law Offices of James S. Tyre > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 > Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > jstyre at jstyre.com > Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://www.eff.org > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 9:33 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user >> data, >> >> >> On 8 Jun 2013, at 11:24, McTim wrote: >> >>> oh wait we are against that as well. >> >> >> Why are we against moving things to privacy and data havens like Ireland. Iceland and >> others? I think it would be a great incentive for creating data havens. >> >> Is it because that would be a market type force - voting with our data - and we must not >> ever admit that even market forces are useful sometimes? >> >> BTW how many countries spy on the data that cross their geographical borders from outside >> their borders? How many data havens are there? And bravo to the countries trying to >> create them. >> >> Oh, and yes in terms of the US (as I always have been) I am for doing away with the >> Patriot Act and the secrecy of FISA courts, though I do acknowledge that they were an >> improvement on Patriot Act without FISA courts and congressional oversight. I favor all >> countries doing away with all geographical data borders of every sort. But that is in the >> fat chance category, so I live knowing i live in a glass house, and recognizing that we >> all live in glass houses*, I am constantly shopping for curtains. >> >> >> avri >> >> Though some are just one way glass > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 8 13:09:07 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 22:39:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: I honestly actually thought they were doing this for a long time now. Fingerprint, retina, photographs and DNA sample for everyone who comes into the 'mugshot' stage -C On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. > > The US Supreme Court last week upheld the authorization for police to take > a DNA sample from anyone arrested for any crime. > And this DNA will become part of your permanent US record. > > Cannot tell you how much I hate this ruling. > So figured you all should be warned, > in case it missed your notice, being just an internal thing. > > avri > > > * if i am allowed to use that word as an active verb without having been > elected. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Jun 8 13:11:33 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 22:41:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <74AD893B-0B20-4B58-BFD3-1F6D271DF712@ella.com> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <74AD893B-0B20-4B58-BFD3-1F6D271DF712@ella.com> Message-ID: Wouldnt polling be a viable mechanism to get consensus data? -C On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2013, at 12:52, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > What we will do is organise a poll on the matter. > > > when did polling, i.e. voting, become the way we made consensus calls? > > from the CHARTER: > > > The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When > complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly > empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the > IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC > appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having > been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after > a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. > > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough > consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus > decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours > of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a > rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. > > I do not find the word Poll anywhere in the charter. > > avri > > _________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 8 13:12:23 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 02:12:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Hi Sala, I think I started the process. Contributed the first comments. And edited on the wiki. But never mind. And don't worry about giving yourself a warning :-) Best, Adam On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> Just to be clear, I haven't alluded to anything; I hope I've been >> clear and direct when saying the February statement was a mess. Which >> it was (is :-) >> >> ) >> > That mess that you referred to was the consolidation of the statements > expressed by members of the IGC. Whilst it is all very well and easy to > whinge post the process, it is even far better to participate during the > process of preparing the statement. > >> >> Agree about the need to discuss the new statement. Great to have this >> mailing list for that purpose, it has worked very well for many years. >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you >> > perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only >> > responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to >> > this >> > on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse >> > views >> > expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was >> > reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many >> > diverse views within the IGC. >> > >> > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease >> > out >> > the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been >> > expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the >> > statement >> > workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it >> > can >> > be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. >> > >> > Sala >> > (co-coordinator) >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >> >> >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >> >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >> >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying >> >> IGC >> >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in >> >> HTML5 >> >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >> >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I >> >> know >> >> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of >> >> to&fro >> >> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make >> >> something >> >> simple. >> >> >> >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >> >> >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering >> >> and >> >> generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example >> >> see >> >> the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> >> >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >> >> charter >> >> rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not >> >> simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Deirdre. >> >>> >> >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I >> >>> so >> >>> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >> >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >> >>> enables >> >>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >> >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >> >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >> >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, >> >>> which is >> >>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >> >>> basically DRM). >> >>> >> >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >> >>> basically >> >>> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as >> >>> "supporting >> >>> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group >> >>> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, >> >>> through >> >>> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the >> >>> use of >> >>> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >>> >> >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, >> >>> IGC >> >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Catherine >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Catherine Roy >> >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >>> (EFF) >> >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this >> >>> morning. >> >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >> >>> recent >> >>> EFF statement. >> >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft >> >>> Charter", >> >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >> >>> scope >> >>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >> >>> determination >> >>> of end-user usage of content." >> >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The >> >>> objection is >> >>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >> >>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to >> >>> this >> >>> reference in 2 - >> >>> >> >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >> >>> specification: >> >>> >> >>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >> >>> cases >> >>> such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >> >>> >> >>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >> >>> supporting playback of protected content" >> >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> >>> >> >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to >> >>> the >> >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which >> >>> was >> >>> what we were asked about in the first place? >> >>> Thank you >> >>> Deirdre >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Catherine, >> >>>> >> >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >>>> >> >>>> Best, >> >>>> >> >>>> Adam >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi, >> >>>> >> >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to >> >>>> the >> >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable >> >>>> facts, I >> >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one >> >>>> of the >> >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on >> >>>> the W3C >> >>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >> >>>> margin >> >>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >> >>>> be on >> >>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >> >>>> browsers >> >>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >> >>>> shutting out >> >>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in >> >>>> this >> >>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it >> >>>> could >> >>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a >> >>>> wordsmith and >> >>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to >> >>>> see >> >>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and >> >>>> sovereignty >> >>>> over their euh, "equipment". >> >>>> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Catherine >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Catherine Roy >> >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Sala, >> >>>> >> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >> >>>> site >> >>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >> >>>> Perhaps you >> >>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many >> >>>> people >> >>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >>>> >> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >>>> >> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> >>>> supports >> >>>> the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >>>> (EFF) >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> >>>> has >> >>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >> >>>> digital >> >>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >>>> >> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >> >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >> >>>> speaks >> >>>> for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >>>> >> >>>> Adam >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >> >>>> >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >> >>>> comments and suggest text. >> >>>> >> >>>> Kind Regards, >> >>>> Sala >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Dear All, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >> >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence >> >>>>> still in >> >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the >> >>>>> balance of >> >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like >> >>>>> the DRM >> >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". >> >>>>> This is >> >>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >> >>>>> explored by >> >>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). >> >>>>> I have >> >>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be >> >>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in >> >>>>> relation to >> >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >> >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the >> >>>>> Statement >> >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment >> >>>>> in the >> >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more >> >>>>> effective >> >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my >> >>>>> apologies >> >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that >> >>>>> whilst >> >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The >> >>>>> key >> >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >> >>>>> >> >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >> >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >> >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes >> >>>>> are of >> >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is >> >>>>> on the >> >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track >> >>>>> comments >> >>>>> on the revised statement. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >> >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse >> >>>>> and >> >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> >>>>> Foundation >> >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium >> >>>>> (W3C) >> >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people >> >>>>> across >> >>>>> the planet. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to >> >>>>> an >> >>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be >> >>>>> to shut >> >>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability >> >>>>> and >> >>>>> lock in legacy business models. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> >>>>> enable >> >>>>> OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >> >>>>> resources >> >>>>> related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >> >>>>> content. In >> >>>>> such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious >> >>>>> resource >> >>>>> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant >> >>>>> ease of >> >>>>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >> >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the >> >>>>> EFF's >> >>>>> arguments in this regard. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >> >>>> Suva >> >>>> Fiji >> >>>> >> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> >>> William >> >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> >> William >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To 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 >> > >> > > > > > > -- > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Jun 8 13:18:14 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:18:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> Hi all, To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it has filed this FO. As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. Best regards, Catherine [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > > I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make > the proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that > had attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence > saying IGC supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks > DRM in HTML5 harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other > paragraphs discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF > statement. I know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the > point. After a lot of to&fro where we seemed not to be getting > anywhere, just tried to make something simple. > > I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > > And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering > and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for > example see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why >> we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy > > wrote: >> >> Hi Deirdre. >> >> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better >> than I so please correct me as needed but my understanding is >> that EFF's formal objection concerns an element of the HTML >> Working Group charter that enables the Working Group to propose >> the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification which >> effectively represents a technology that, in combination with >> Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with >> CDMs, which is a software component that permits access to >> encrypted resources (so basically DRM). >> >> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the >> charter as "supporting playback of protected content", is out of >> scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is >> objecting to the fact that W3C, through its HTML Working Group, >> propose a specification that will enable the use of Digital >> Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal >> objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier >>> Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the >>> documents until this morning. >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support >>> the recent EFF statement. >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft >>> Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant >>> broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to >>> include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The >>> objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text >>> contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification >>> fotr the objection. >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is >>> to this reference in 2 - >>> >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the >>> updated HTML specification: >>> >>> * additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to >>> support use cases such as live events or premium content; >>> for example, additions for: >>> o facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions >>> ) >>> o supporting playback of protected content" >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>> >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's >>> Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on >>> DRM in HTML5? >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, >>> which was what we were asked about in the first place? >>> Thank you >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Catherine, >>> >>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is >>>> simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for >>>> the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with >>>> regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key >>>> issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as >>>> someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, >>>> standards should be at the margin of debates, and if >>>> required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the >>>> side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >>>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real >>>> problem here with shutting out users who do not have the >>>> right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of >>>> the discussions revolve around premium content but it >>>> could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >>>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not >>>> proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more >>>> clear in the statement regarding users rights and >>>> sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Roy >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> Hi Sala, >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a >>>>> separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my >>>>> opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to >>>>> visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>>> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >>>>> endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the >>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management >>>>> in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we >>>>> object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) >>>>> in HTML5. >>>>> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their >>>>> statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft >>>>> Charter" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself >>>>> long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than >>>>> above. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you >>>>>> can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>> Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. >>>>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I >>>>>> have revised the first version to the one below. I >>>>>> have highlighted the sentence still in contention and >>>>>> also note that there are mixed reactions to the >>>>>> balance of the protection of intellectual property >>>>>> rights through mediums like the DRM to protect >>>>>> innovation and challenges to threats of impeded >>>>>> "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I >>>>>> believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC >>>>>> where we can come to some common ground (if we are >>>>>> able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La >>>>>> Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see >>>>>> his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the >>>>>> IGC has to say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points >>>>>> that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement >>>>>> will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC >>>>>> website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces >>>>>> are far more effective in neatly allowing people to >>>>>> comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the >>>>>> attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland >>>>>> suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is >>>>>> not one we should spend time on? The key issues for >>>>>> your deliberation would be:- >>>>>> >>>>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights >>>>>> Management? >>>>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights >>>>>> Management in HTML 5? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new >>>>>> wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your >>>>>> views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let >>>>>> us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on >>>>>> the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will >>>>>> allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> *_Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s >>>>>> Objection_* >>>>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >>>>>> objects to the inclusion of digital rights management >>>>>> (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal >>>>>> objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>>>>> Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the >>>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web >>>>>> innovation and block access to content for people >>>>>> across the planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a >>>>>> serious threat to an open and free internet. The >>>>>> inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out >>>>>> open source developers and competition, destroy >>>>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source >>>>>> developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow >>>>>> for an open environment of sharing resources related >>>>>> to agricultural practices, education, health and >>>>>> diverse content. In such regions, access to >>>>>> information is a challenge and with serious resource >>>>>> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and >>>>>> the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing >>>>>> information) that empowers communities. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong >>>>>> objection to the support for DRM technologies in >>>>>> HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in >>>>>> this regard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>> Suva >>>>>> Fiji >>>>>> >>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" >>> Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- 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 soekpe at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 13:19:59 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:19:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: For a very long time, this has been going on. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jun 8, 2013 6:09 PM, "Chaitanya Dhareshwar" wrote: > I honestly actually thought they were doing this for a long time now. > Fingerprint, retina, photographs and DNA sample for everyone who comes into > the 'mugshot' stage > > -C > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. >> >> The US Supreme Court last week upheld the authorization for police to >> take a DNA sample from anyone arrested for any crime. >> And this DNA will become part of your permanent US record. >> >> Cannot tell you how much I hate this ruling. >> So figured you all should be warned, >> in case it missed your notice, being just an internal thing. >> >> avri >> >> >> * if i am allowed to use that word as an active verb without having been >> elected. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 13:25:19 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:25:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, In-Reply-To: <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2013, at 11:24, McTim wrote: > >> oh wait we are against that as well. > > > Why are we against moving things to privacy and data havens like Ireland. Because they allow the "Giants" to dodge taxes, as we have seen on list many times in the last few weeks. Iceland and others? I think it would be a great incentive for creating data havens. > > Is it because that would be a market type force - voting with our data - and we must not ever admit that even market forces are useful sometimes? perhaps that is part of it. > > BTW how many countries spy on the data that cross their geographical borders from outside their borders? How many data havens are there? And bravo to the countries trying to create them. +1 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 13:48:02 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 05:48:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <74AD893B-0B20-4B58-BFD3-1F6D271DF712@ella.com> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <74AD893B-0B20-4B58-BFD3-1F6D271DF712@ella.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2013, at 12:52, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > What we will do is organise a poll on the matter. > > > when did polling, i.e. voting, become the way we made consensus calls? > > Given that no one seems to be bent on wanting to use the Statement workspace, it is increasingly difficult to monitor consensus on aspects of the Charter in a manner that is open for all to see. The statement workspace allows people to make comments on specific provisions. Given the diverse spectrum of views (hardliners, diplomats, yay sayers, nay sayers, I am right and you are wrong, ) what is wrong with getting a poll, not a vote to see how all the members feel quickly about certain aspects? The poll would help us see what the list generally feels so we can call consensus on the matter... from the CHARTER: > > > The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When > complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly > empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the > IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC > appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having > been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after > a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. > > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough > consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus > decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours > of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a > rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. > > I do not find the word Poll anywhere in the charter. > > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 13:51:46 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:51:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. to this: We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 Deirdre On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy wrote: > Hi all, > > To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has > decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more > effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending > petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having > their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this > issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical > drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, > etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I > have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best > way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this > work is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of > saying no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to > why it has filed this FO. > > As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a semblance > of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by releasing > a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the statement > itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we support the > objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to ensure > consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it because > DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of this issue > is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on this > aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the IGC > interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and had > hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this > particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. > > Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under > enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action > counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a > recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to > reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML > this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it > is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > > [1] > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web > > > > On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > > I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC > supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I > know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of > to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make > something simple. > > I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > > And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering > and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example > see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter > rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not > simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > > > On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi Deirdre. >> >> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so >> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which >> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >> basically DRM). >> >> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically >> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting >> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group >> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through >> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of >> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent >> EFF statement. >> The EF